Jump to content


RedDenver

Members
  • Posts

    14,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by RedDenver

  1. Yes, very odd for them to pick the pandemic as the time frame. Total mystery as to why. Unless of course you read the title: Updates: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers Or the subtitle: Check back for our regular updates on U.S. unemployment and billionaire wealth during the pandemic emergency. And note that the updates started back on May 14th 2020, which is also when they picked the May 18 date. And they even mention the down point in billionaire wealth right in that first update: Even if they had picked May of 2019, billionaires have increased their wealth from $3 trillion to $5 trillion, which is a 67% increase. In summary, way to miss the forest for the trees and even then being wrong.
  2. It's already been linked for you but you continue to distract with the $600 transaction nonsense, but here it is again: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-banks-600-dollar-irs/ The main detail is the reporting, not the “de minimis threshold” value that you're going on about. As for why we'd want do this type of reporting (regardless of the threshold): The fact you won't put forth a different threshold number, shows you're really just trying to oppose the bill without having to say it. Or you're trolling. But good news for those concerned about the exact threshold number:
  3. Updates: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers
  4. No, no it isn't. And your next sentence shows that you know it too: Yes, that's exactly the point. Good for you at trying to distract and equivocate instead of engaging in the main point of the discussion. Which statement of mine is disingenuous? Is it the inference that's a reflection of what you posted to me? Were you intending to be disingenuous?
  5. Sad to see this account end:
  6. There's tons of arguments in favor of increased IRS enforcement. You're trying to deflect away from the main point of increasing enforcement by making the whole thing about some minor detail of which number is picked as the limit. I am inferring that you cannot argue against the main point which is why you're so focused on a minor detail.
  7. I'd be ok with that too. The $600 is a red herring.
  8. The rich people that own banks don't want more IRS enforcement?!?!?? Knock me over with a feather.
  9. Onerous on who? The bank computers that will automatically submit the reports? This is at least a decent argument. But as the fact check @Scarletlinked points out, it won't be individual transactions that are sent to the IRS but instead annual aggregations.
  10. No, they wouldn't. Investigating and real journalism takes time, which is the opposite of what people watch for news. Getting eyeballs and clicks means going with the fastest, most "breaking news" regardless of accuracy. And even if there was news that was fast and accurate, many people want the news to reinforce their existing beliefs and not have to have their views challenged.
  11. I like getting away with things.
  12. He deserves a fifth year. Now what?
  13. Tech companies aren't racist? I've worked at several tech companies and they've got some problems with racism just like every other company. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/black-tech-employees-continue-to-face-workplace-racism.aspx https://www.protocol.com/nda-racism-equality-diversity-tech https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-06-24/diversity-in-tech-tech-workers-tell-their-story But even if what you're saying were true, that's a single industry out of hundreds.
×
×
  • Create New...