Florida becoming more and more Republican

[Theo8]

On 10/31/2023 at 10:37 AM, tallslenderguy said:

Lmao.  "!" indeed.  Perhaps an indirect response of a woman stuck in Stockholm Syndrome?

She's not a hostage-she's getting paid well for being his wife.  

[hntnhole]

On 11/4/2023 at 4:03 PM, BlackDude said:

You cannot reverse time, or freeze it. Both are unnatural, and impossible

Thanks, BlackDude, for your reply.  I appreciate it.  

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree; hashing out different points of view is how we progress, right?

 

 

[BlackDude]

On 11/4/2023 at 1:18 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm not sure when this magical time that you think Obama got "everything" he wanted from voters was. Please clarify.

When Obama took office in 2009, it was with a Senate that had 59 Democrats - one short of the number needed to overcome any filibuster. Mitch McConnell made it clear, even before inauguration, that the Republican minority would block anything and everything that Obama proposed - with the exception of a handful of bills related to recovering from the ongoing GOP-initiated Great Recession.

It took until July 7, 2009 for the legal challenges to the Minnesota election to be resolved, putting Al Franken in the Senate (giving the Democrats the ability to move legislation without Republican support). That lasted about three weeks, until Congress went on its customary August break, during which time Ted Kennedy died, leaving the Democrats with 59 votes again.

Kennedy's replacement, Scott Brown, was appointed and took office on September 24, 2009. The Democrats again had between then and February 4, 2010 - when Republican Scott Brown, elected in the special election to replace Kennedy, took over the seat. Given the regular flow of holiday breaks, etc., this second period of 60 Senators on the Democratic side actually involved only about 5 weeks of actual legislative activity, Combine that with the 3 weeks in July, and you're at roughly 2 months - TOTAL - when Obama and the Democrats held enough of a majority to pass anything.

That's the facts. Despite those headwinds, we got the stimulus bill out (which itself was crippled because some Democrats didn't want it to be as big as the president wanted) and the ACA - which also was limited because some Democrats insisted on gutting some major provisions.

The problem is not and was not the party. The problem is that certain members of the party don't support the party's aims because it's not advantageous for them, politically. 

That was a great history lesson, but doesn’t negate any of the other remedies. The Dems will always blame “civics” on why they can’t change the status quo. When Biden added hundreds of IRS agents, changed reporting requirements to $600 and added funding to incorporate the use of AI in tax audits, we didn’t hear anything about civics and elections.
 

And alot of their civics excuses are not in the constitution, They are just procedural rules.

Dems see themselves as a D.C. social club, with no clue, or intent, to help the citizens of Florida
 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by BlackDude

[BootmanLA]

19 hours ago, BlackDude said:

That was a great history lesson, but doesn’t negate any of the other remedies. The Dems will always blame “civics” on why they can’t change the status quo. When Biden added hundreds of IRS agents, changed reporting requirements to $600 and added funding to incorporate the use of AI in tax audits, we didn’t hear anything about civics and elections.
 

And alot of their civics excuses are not in the constitution, They are just procedural rules.

Dems see themselves as a D.C. social club, with no clue, or intent, to help the citizens of Florida
 

 

You mean, when a president got funding to enforce the law, it was somehow a bad thing?

I'm not sure which "$600" requirement you're talking about, so I can't address that. Perhaps if you were clearer instead of just saying "reporting requirements" (for what? for whom?) people might be able to discuss the issues instead of just watching someone spew, well, random words.

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You mean, when a president got funding to enforce the law, it was somehow a bad thing?

I'm not sure which "$600" requirement you're talking about, so I can't address that. Perhaps if you were clearer instead of just saying "reporting requirements" (for what? for whom?) people might be able to discuss the issues instead of just watching someone spew, well, random words.

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-delay-for-implementation-of-600-reporting-threshold-for-third-party-payment-platforms-forms-1099-k

[think before following links] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/select/irs-600-reporting-rule-delayed/

When most people discuss reporting and the IRS, they usually assume the reporting of income is the topic.  However, Here is a link for your reference. Is this clear enough for you? 
 

Also, that “funding to enforce the law” could be used to secure our borders instead squeezing small businesses. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by BlackDude

[BootmanLA]

14 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-delay-for-implementation-of-600-reporting-threshold-for-third-party-payment-platforms-forms-1099-k

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/select/irs-600-reporting-rule-delayed/

When most people discuss reporting and the IRS, they usually assume the reporting of income is the topic.  However, Here is a link for your reference. Is this clear enough for you? 
 

Also, that “funding to enforce the law” could be used to secure our borders instead squeezing small businesses. 

You mean "blocking immigrants seeking a better life instead of going after tax cheats," right?

All in the wording.

And yes, I assumed reporting of income. That said, there are thresholds for all sorts of reporting from all sorts of parties, and which one you meant wasn't clear - thanks for specifying.

That $600 threshold for reporting is perfectly sensible - it's not putting any onus on small businesses; it's requiring payment platforms (paypal, venmo, whatever) who SEND the businesses money to report it. All a small business has to do is what it's always been required to do: report its income completely and fully, and there's no issue.

And yes, big business and the super rich cheat more, but it's often hard to prove, because they've got armies of accountants and lawyers looking for loopholes to stretch to reduce their taxable income. Which is why most of the extra IRS funding is going to hire more auditors to look over those returns carefully and push back on what I would call "questionable" interpretations of the rules.

That doesn't mean the IRS should just ignore small businesses that routinely and deliberately underreport their income. The 3rd party processor thing is the same kind of reporting that businesses have always had to do when paying for services, by filing 1099 forms for any business to whom they paid $600.

What boggles my mind is people actually defending tax cheats.

[BlackDude]

4 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

You mean "blocking immigrants seeking a better life instead of going after tax cheats," right?

All in the wording.

And yes, I assumed reporting of income. That said, there are thresholds for all sorts of reporting from all sorts of parties, and which one you meant wasn't clear - thanks for specifying.

That $600 threshold for reporting is perfectly sensible - it's not putting any onus on small businesses; it's requiring payment platforms (paypal, venmo, whatever) who SEND the businesses money to report it. All a small business has to do is what it's always been required to do: report its income completely and fully, and there's no issue.

And yes, big business and the super rich cheat more, but it's often hard to prove, because they've got armies of accountants and lawyers looking for loopholes to stretch to reduce their taxable income. Which is why most of the extra IRS funding is going to hire more auditors to look over those returns carefully and push back on what I would call "questionable" interpretations of the rules.

That doesn't mean the IRS should just ignore small businesses that routinely and deliberately underreport their income. The 3rd party processor thing is the same kind of reporting that businesses have always had to do when paying for services, by filing 1099 forms for any business to whom they paid $600.

What boggles my mind is people actually defending tax cheats.

How are these people “tax cheats” when their was no requirement for them to report? 

What boggles my mind is people think it’s okay for us to spend resources to suppress hard working citizens and businesses while at the same time use more resources uplift non-citizens. US Tax payers are not obligated to ensure the economic prosperity if unlawful migrants or foreign countries. 
 

And in 2024, I think Dems will find out most of us believe the same. 

[topblkmale]

9 hours ago, BlackDude said:

How are these people “tax cheats” when their was no requirement for them to report? 

What boggles my mind is people think it’s okay for us to spend resources to suppress hard working citizens and businesses while at the same time use more resources uplift non-citizens. US Tax payers are not obligated to ensure the economic prosperity if unlawful migrants or foreign countries. 
 

And in 2024, I think Dems will find out most of us believe the same. 

Vote blue. 🤣

[hntnhole]

13 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Dems see themselves as a D.C. social club, with no clue, or intent, to help the citizens of Florida

I don't quite agree with that, since there are relatively few D's in office in FL (particularly higher office), but - it's a good enough reason to elect a few more and judge their efforts when the "playing field" is a bit more balanced.  

One thing is certain though:  the current Administration in FL is simply focused on repressing "the other", so there's no surprise that it's achieved rather little positive, uplifting, inclusive achievements.  

[hntnhole]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:18 PM, fuckholedc said:

I *DID* see young D activists try this in local elections in Ohio with mixed results

Well, I'm pleased to know that you noticed at least some positive actions in your area.  I don't live in Ohio, but I do live in FL, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Thanks for your input.  

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, BlackDude said:

How are these people “tax cheats” when their was no requirement for them to report? 

What boggles my mind is people think it’s okay for us to spend resources to suppress hard working citizens and businesses while at the same time use more resources uplift non-citizens. US Tax payers are not obligated to ensure the economic prosperity if unlawful migrants or foreign countries. 
And in 2024, I think Dems will find out most of us believe the same. 

Here's the problem with blithely using pronouns like "them" without an antecedent.

There has ALWAYS been a requirement for businesses (small or large) to report ALL of their income (unless there is a specific exclusion, and those are few).

And there has long (I can't say "always", but it's many decades old) been a requirement for businesses who pay another business more than $600 in a year to report that payment to the IRS, on a 1099 form.

So if I'm Joe's Accounting and Nail Salon, and I pay Bob's Lawnmowing more than $600 in the year to do the landscaping at my office, I'm supposed to send the IRS and Bob's a 1099 showing that I paid that money to them. That, as I say, has LONG been the law - going back to the 1970's at least, and probably much earlier.

And if I were ever audited, and I showed $800 on my books in payments to Bob, the IRS would look to see that I actually sent the 1099 to them and to Bob. That's how they verify that the payment is legitimate, because I'm going to deduct that $800 from my income as an expense - they need to be able to find where someone ELSE picked up that $800 as an expense. That's how it works. Otherwise, I could just write checks to various people and places (and deduct them as expenses), then they cash the checks and return the cash to me. That's tax fraud.

The big problem for the IRS, for a long time, has been cash transactions - if people pay cash for a service, it's very tempting for the business owner to just pocket the cash and never report it. That's illegal, and it means other people whose businesses operate more by check, credit card, or electronic transfers end up paying full taxes while the guy who takes a lot of cash does not. That's a fundamental fairness question.

But fewer and fewer people are paying with actual cash these days - they're using paypal, venmo, zelle, whatever. The IRS is using that paradigm shift in payments to treat those formerly cash (and thus hideable) payments as something that can be tracked, to ensure compliance with the law.

And again, the new burden is on the big payment processors, NOT the small business. The small business just has to do what it should have been doing: report all its income.

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't is encouraging tax cheating. Which, again, is your right to do: just admit you want small businesses to commit tax fraud.

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, BlackDude said:

How are these people “tax cheats” when their was no requirement for them to report? 

What boggles my mind is people think it’s okay for us to spend resources to suppress hard working citizens and businesses while at the same time use more resources uplift non-citizens. US Tax payers are not obligated to ensure the economic prosperity if unlawful migrants or foreign countries. 

And in 2024, I think Dems will find out most of us believe the same. 

I'll add: collecting the taxes that are duly owed has NOTHING to do with "uplifting non-citizens" or "prosperity of unlawful migrants".

If you don't like what the government spends its money on (even if you seem to have a very misguided idea of what what we spend, on what), that's one thing.

It's another thing entirely to suggest that businesses that have the opportunity to cheat on their taxes should do so as a means of protesting how we spend.

[BlackDude]

35 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Here's the problem with blithely using pronouns like "them" without an antecedent.

There has ALWAYS been a requirement for businesses (small or large) to report ALL of their income (unless there is a specific exclusion, and those are few).

And there has long (I can't say "always", but it's many decades old) been a requirement for businesses who pay another business more than $600 in a year to report that payment to the IRS, on a 1099 form.

So if I'm Joe's Accounting and Nail Salon, and I pay Bob's Lawnmowing more than $600 in the year to do the landscaping at my office, I'm supposed to send the IRS and Bob's a 1099 showing that I paid that money to them. That, as I say, has LONG been the law - going back to the 1970's at least, and probably much earlier.

And if I were ever audited, and I showed $800 on my books in payments to Bob, the IRS would look to see that I actually sent the 1099 to them and to Bob. That's how they verify that the payment is legitimate, because I'm going to deduct that $800 from my income as an expense - they need to be able to find where someone ELSE picked up that $800 as an expense. That's how it works. Otherwise, I could just write checks to various people and places (and deduct them as expenses), then they cash the checks and return the cash to me. That's tax fraud.

The big problem for the IRS, for a long time, has been cash transactions - if people pay cash for a service, it's very tempting for the business owner to just pocket the cash and never report it. That's illegal, and it means other people whose businesses operate more by check, credit card, or electronic transfers end up paying full taxes while the guy who takes a lot of cash does not. That's a fundamental fairness question.

But fewer and fewer people are paying with actual cash these days - they're using paypal, venmo, zelle, whatever. The IRS is using that paradigm shift in payments to treat those formerly cash (and thus hideable) payments as something that can be tracked, to ensure compliance with the law.

And again, the new burden is on the big payment processors, NOT the small business. The small business just has to do what it should have been doing: report all its income.

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't is encouraging tax cheating. Which, again, is your right to do: just admit you want small businesses to commit tax fraud.

I don’t disagree with anything you said technically. However, laws are only as good as their enforcement and enforcement requires resources. We have many laws on the books that we don’t enforce because they are not practical, dated/harm people or the resources to enforce them outweighs the benefits to society. That’s like arresting people for sodomy and saying “well the law is the law.” We have a social understanding that those laws should be ignored, and we don’t dedicate resources to enforcing it. 

The fact that Dems claim they can never get anything passed, except when it come to focusing on IRS/tax enforcement for smaller businesses tells me where their priorities are. 
 

 

[BlackDude]

8 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Vote blue. 🤣

I’m not dedicated to either party. I vote on based on the agenda presented 

[PozBearWI]

5 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

The fact that Dems claim they can never get anything passed, except when it come to focusing on IRS/tax enforcement for smaller businesses tells me where their priorities are. 
 

We all know "Dems" have gotten lots of bills passed, well beyond IRS/Tax enforcement.  Which Dem is claiming this?  (and why are they not voted out?)