IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[nehalem256]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-ids-irs-leaker-eliana-johnson


Thank you for willingly being the voice of stupid in virtually every thread.

So does this mean that the way the left found out about the CEO of Mozilla's anti-same-sex marriage donation was through the illegal leaking of this list by the IRS?

 

[werepossum]

If we're being honest here. Does anyone really believe that if you make a political donation that it should even legally be allowed to be anonymous? I think if you choose to donate money to politics, it's automatically becoming public and that information should be publicly available. The only reason I can imagine for someone being ok with keeping this information secret is if that person is ok with buying politicians.

As Nehalem points out, there are real world consequences which apply, with concerted efforts to punish people for unapproved thoughts and behavior. Also, most of the money we're discussing here is for advocacy adverts and materials, not buying politicians.

So does this mean that the way the left found out about the CEO of Mozilla's anti-same-sex marriage donation was through the illegal leaking of this list by the IRS?

I dunno. Possible I suppose, but for some reason I'm thinking it was a donation from before SCOTUS approved donor privacy.

 

[fskimospy]

As Nehalem points out, there are real world consequences which apply, with concerted efforts to punish people for unapproved thoughts and behavior. Also, most of the money we're discussing here is for advocacy adverts and materials, not buying politicians.

I dunno. Possible I suppose, but for some reason I'm thinking it was a donation from before SCOTUS approved donor privacy.

Under California law the state may disclose the information of anyone who donates more than $100 to any ballot measure. The LA Times requested the information and then put it online.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of wrongdoing in this case, and the 10% number, even if true isn't evidence of wrongdoing.

I also would not be quick to just dismiss this as conspiracy nuts, given how those 'conspiracy nuts' were in fact right that tea party groups had been in appropriately targeted before.

It's definitely a reasonable request to investigate such a thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Agree and I'm fully open to the possibility of no foul play. I just want to know whether or not there's a rational explanation for this because a 10:1 ratio is crazy unless all those donors targeted for IRS audits have incomes greater than $1,000,000.

I sincerely doubt it is a 10:1 ratio as my guess is that those contributing to Tea Party groups have incomes that are substantially higher than the median US income. Additionally, the IRS audit algorithms are designed to flag returns with specific behaviors on them, not just based on income level. It would not surprise me in the slightest if claiming tax deductions for donations to political sounding groups triggered a higher risk of audit, especially considering how frequently deductions are inappropriately taken for things like that.

I would also be really surprised if people in the IRS were selectively auditing people based on their presence on donor lists.

 

[thraashman]

As Nehalem points out, there are real world consequences which apply, with concerted efforts to punish people for unapproved thoughts and behavior. Also, most of the money we're discussing here is for advocacy adverts and materials, not buying politicians.

And if you're trying to buy changes in public policy it should be public that you're doing it. There ARE real world consequences and that's why it SHOULDN'T be anonymous. Then perhaps people will think more before they throw money at causes with the purpose of attacking the rights of others. I'm proud of every monetary donation I make, if I weren't I wouldn't make them.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm shocked, shocked, that the organization responsible for collecting taxes would look more intensely at those who had donated to groups that were outspoken in their opposition to taxation. Profiling is wrong, but are we really surprised when it happens? Stereotypes are a real time-saver.

Do you have any evidence to back up the notion that someone who opposes higher taxation or support tea party type groups is more likely to commit tax fraud? I'll be waiting for that. Of course it doesn't exist.

If the concept of the IRS (or other similar agencies) using their vast government power to punish or intimidate people based on political views doesn't scare the bejesus out of you, you're crazy. I don't care what political persuasion is the target of such activity, it's an attack on freedom and should not be tolerated by anyone. I would be no more supportive of these activities if they were targeting lib groups instead of conservative groups, it's wrong and dangerous to democracy.

 

[PokerGuy]

I sincerely doubt it is a 10:1 ratio as my guess is that those contributing to Tea Party groups have incomes that are substantially higher than the median US income. Additionally, the IRS audit algorithms are designed to flag returns with specific behaviors on them, not just based on income level. It would not surprise me in the slightest if claiming tax deductions for donations to political sounding groups triggered a higher risk of audit, especially considering how frequently deductions are inappropriately taken for things like that.

Agreed.

I would also be really surprised if people in the IRS were selectively auditing people based on their presence on donor lists.

I would not be. After seeing donor lists getting leaked, certain groups getting targeted etc, it would not be hard to believe some agents and their bosses would target people who's politics they disagree with.

 

[Fern]

my vocabulary has just increased


explosion = "10% of tea party donors audited by IRS"

Nice to know 10% constitutes an explosion

Really?

That's like a 900% increase over the typical (random) percent audited by the IRS. That's a higher rate of audit than taxpayers having $5 million in AGI. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-are-the-odds-being-audited.html

That's far too high to make it likely to be a mere coincidence. (Edit: Seems the sample size the IRS examined was fairly small. Need a larger study.)

I would suggest the DIF algorithm used by the IRS to select tax returns for audits be analyzed. It may be targeting contributions to TEA Party type groups by assigning a high score to contributions to such groups. The higher the DIF score the higher the chances of audit.

The above would be automated targeting. There are other ways, but that would likely mean the creation of a task force to specifically identify and target contributors to TEA Party type groups.

I would be interested to know if donors to liberal type groups are experiencing such a high audit rate.

Fern

 

[nehalem256]

And if you're trying to buy changes in public policy it should be public that you're doing it. There ARE real world consequences and that's why it SHOULDN'T be anonymous. Then perhaps people will think more before they throw money at causes with the purpose of attacking the rights of others. I'm proud of every monetary donation I make, if I weren't I wouldn't make them.

The issue isn't being proud or not proud of your donations. The issue is having left-wing activists engage in a witch hunt to take away your livelihood years later.

 

[Jhhnn]

As Nehalem points out, there are real world consequences which apply, with concerted efforts to punish people for unapproved thoughts and behavior. Also, most of the money we're discussing here is for advocacy adverts and materials, not buying politicians.

You're probably not talking about the new HUAC, Issa's committee, are you?

What sort of consequences will the uber-wealthy suffer, anyway?

 

[Jhhnn]

The issue isn't being proud or not proud of your donations. The issue is having left-wing activists engage in a witch hunt to take away your livelihood years later.

So the issue is right wing paranoia coupled with a persecution complex in the usual "taking away our freedumbs by not taking away our freedumbs" fashion.

 

[werepossum]

And if you're trying to buy changes in public policy it should be public that you're doing it. There ARE real world consequences and that's why it SHOULDN'T be anonymous. Then perhaps people will think more before they throw money at causes with the purpose of attacking the rights of others. I'm proud of every monetary donation I make, if I weren't I wouldn't make them.

There are real world consequences to everything - should there be no privacy?

What about your proggie brothers in red states and red industries - are you willing to sacrifice their careers and livelihoods to be more easily able to attack conservatives?

Really?

That's like a 900% increase over the typical (random) percent audited by the IRS. That's a higher rate of audit than taxpayers having $5 million in AGI. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-are-the-odds-being-audited.html

That's far too high to make it likely to be a mere coincidence. (Edit: Seems the sample size the IRS examined was fairly small. Need a larger study.)

I would suggest the DIF algorithm used by the IRS to select tax returns for audits be analyzed. It may be targeting contributions to TEA Party type groups by assigning a high score to contributions to such groups. The higher the DIF score the higher the chances of audit.

The above would be automated targeting. There are other ways, but that would likely mean the creation of a task force to specifically identify and target contributors to TEA Party type groups.

I would be interested to know if donors to liberal type groups are experiencing such a high audit rate.

Fern

I think these lists were of major donors, so possibly their incomes do average in the $5 million range. I too would be interested to know if donors to liberal type groups are experiencing such a high audit rate, given the environment prevalent within the IRS. And it should definitely be investigated, I'm just not ready to be outraged yet.

You're probably not talking about the new HUAC, Issa's committee, are you?

What sort of consequences will the uber-wealthy suffer, anyway?

Well, they could be kicked out of being CEO for Mozilla for one. If one is a Koch brother, your point is probably valid, but there are other people who make very good money but are still vulnerable to PC attacks.

 

[werepossum]

Under California law the state may disclose the information of anyone who donates more than $100 to any ballot measure. The LA Times requested the information and then put it online.

Thanks.

 

[WelshBloke]

Do you have any evidence to back up the notion that someone who opposes higher taxation or support tea party type groups is more likely to commit tax fraud? I'll be waiting for that. Of course it doesn't exist.

Well I suppose the way to clear that up would be to audit those who oppose higher taxation and see if they were lying on their tax returns.

 

[Fern]

Well I suppose the way to clear that up would be to audit those who oppose higher taxation and see if they were lying on their tax returns.

The number of Americans who oppose higher taxation is nearly 100%

It's just that about half of them only oppose higher taxation for themselves.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

The number of Americans who oppose higher taxation is nearly 100%

It's just that about half of them only oppose higher taxation for themselves.

Fern

lol QFT

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I'm shocked, shocked, that the organization responsible for collecting taxes would look more intensely at those who had donated to groups that were outspoken in their opposition to taxation. Profiling is wrong, but are we really surprised when it happens? Stereotypes are a real time-saver.

lmao

 

[nehalem256]

So the issue is right wing paranoia coupled with a persecution complex in the usual "taking away our freedumbs by not taking away our freedumbs" fashion.

Its not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Or did you miss the whole mozilla CEO drama?

 

[WelshBloke]

The number of Americans who oppose higher taxation is nearly 100%

There we go then, if they are just auditing some of the 100% whats the problem? :sneaky:

 

[OutHouse]

So the issue is right wing paranoia coupled with a persecution complex in the usual "taking away our freedumbs by not taking away our freedumbs" fashion.

Have you been hitting the recreational weed shops on Colfax a lot lately? Your post are out there man.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Its not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Or did you miss the whole mozilla CEO drama?

You mean the CEO (of a company that promotes the idea of inclusion and tolerance and employs a lot of gay people) that actively worked to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights and paid a price for his actions? The guy who a number of board members believed was unsuitable for the position and resigned in protest *before* the issue went viral? The guy who could have gone back to being CTO but decided to resign from the company instead.

You mean *that* guy?

 

[nehalem256]

You mean the CEO (of a company that promotes the idea of inclusion and tolerance and employs a lot of gay people) that actively worked to deny gays and lesbians their civil rights and paid a price for his actions? The guy who a number of board members believed was unsuitable for the position

Yet they had no issue with hiring him until liberal activists launch a virtual lynching. I wonder what changed?

and resigned in protest *before* the issue went viral?

I think you mean told to resign or be fired

The guy who could have gone back to being CTO but decided to resign from the company instead.

You mean *that* guy?

Wait a minute? I thought he was unsuitable to work in the company?:hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

Its not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Or did you miss the whole mozilla CEO drama?

Which has nothing to do with this, but nice try anyway. Eich's net worth is enormous, meaning that his job had more to do with his ego than the necessity of making a living. He doesn't need a job, at all.

The whole anonymity routine is part & parcel of astroturfing right wing deception. The Teahad can't possibly be a real grassroots movement if nearly all their funding comes from America's wealthiest, can it?

Like this-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

I have no problem with wealthy people putting money into politics, in general, but I have a problem with the misrepresentations inherent in the current way of doing things. I figure that if it weren't for anonymous uber right uber wealthy donors & Faux News that the Tea Party wouldn't be a pimple on the ass of American politics.

I'm far from wealthy, but I do make political contributions. My name is on every one of them, too. I'm willing to stand up for my convictions in a very personal way & believe it's only right that others should do the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

Have you been hitting the recreational weed shops on Colfax a lot lately? Your post are out there man.

Negative on both counts. Your comprehension level is just exceptionally low, your need for denial high, and your willingness to engage in smears & innuendo obvious.