The Republican Utopia

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I am confronting it by pointing out that it's a red herring...for which it is.  

 

What wrong with $600?  And, if that's wrong, what's the right number?

It’s not a red herring or blue herring or even purple herring.  It’s just you not realizing that when one carries your argument to it’s logical conclusion, your argument isn’t very smart. 
 

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know people who own banks.  I wouldn't call them middle income people.

So do I.  Pension holders, 401k holders, credit union members.   Lots who are middle income citizens. 

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Actually millions.  tens of millions.  

[Archy1221]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'd be ok with that too. The $600 is a red herring.

I can at least appreciate this statement.  You don’t seem in favor of some nonsensical arbitrary number.  I am inferring that you agree  there is no arguments or it.  

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s not a red herring or blue herring or even purple herring.  It’s just you not realizing that when one carries your argument to it’s logical conclusion, your argument isn’t very smart.

It is a red herring because there's no logical answer to your question and that's why you asked it.  To have a logical answer, you need to answer my questions.  What's wrong with $600.  And....if that's wrong, what is the right number?

If you can't answer both of those questions, your argument is a red herring used only to deflect away from the actual goal.

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

What's wrong with $600.  And....if that's wrong, what is the right number?

I’ve answered it.  Why ask that question again?  To make believe you didn’t read it the first time?  
It’s onerous and assumes guilt with normal day to day societal transactions.  The right number is the current number.  

 

I’m glad we agree there is no logic to your way of thinking on this or your only rich people own banks nonsense.  

[RedDenver]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I can at least appreciate this statement.  You don’t seem in favor of some nonsensical arbitrary number.  I am inferring that you agree  there is no arguments or it.  

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.

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The right number is the current number.  

 

Why?

 

46 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m glad we agree there is no logic to your way of thinking on this or your only rich people own banks nonsense.  

You're funny.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

So do I.  Pension holders, 401k holders, credit union members.   Lots who are middle income citizens. 

That's funny, because you know that's not who he's talking about.  I guess I own a bank because I have a 401K.  You know what?  I really don't care about them b!^@hing about having to report something to the IRS.

[teachercd]

Man, some of you don't know what a red herring is.

 

It is a fish.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

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.

That minor detail is a pretty MAJOR point.  I’m sorry you understand this.  The main point is they don’t want high income people skirting the tax laws.  I’ve never disagreed here and you can’t show otherwise.  Why would you make the quite disingenuous statement?  

13 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Man, some of you don't know what a red herring is.

 

It is a fish.

Once again teach is spot on!

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That minor detail is a pretty MAJOR point.  I’m sorry you understand this.

No, no it isn't. And your next sentence shows that you know it too:

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 The main point is they don’t want high income people skirting the tax laws.

Yes, that's exactly the point.

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ve never disagreed here and you can’t show otherwise.

Good for you at trying to distract and equivocate instead of engaging in the main point of the discussion.

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 Why would you make the quite disingenuous statement?  

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?

 

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I can at least appreciate this statement.  You don’t seem in favor of some nonsensical arbitrary number.  I am inferring that you agree  there is no arguments or it.  

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

No, no it isn't. And your next sentence shows that you know it too:

yes, yes it is….You are just being disingenuous and not engaging in honest discourse at this point so there isn’t any reason to go forward with after this.  
 

You should be smart enough to understand there is a difference between THE POINT OF LEGISLATION AND THE DETAILS OF SAID LEGISLATION TO MAKE THAT POINT HAPPEN.  
 

I will go slow for you this time.  The point is to catch people not paying the full amount of income taxes that should be paid.  No one here said POINT is a bad thing.   The MAIN DETAIL in the legislation was the $600 transaction amount. Hopefully you can now engage in honest discourse.  
 

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, that's exactly the point.

I agreed multiple times 

 

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

Good for you at trying to distract and equivocate instead of engaging in the main point of the discussion.

But wait….now it’s NOT the main point and just a distraction????

 

 

[knapplc]

Republicans are against canceling things.

 

 

[RedDenver]

59 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

yes, yes it is….You are just being disingenuous and not engaging in honest discourse at this point so there isn’t any reason to go forward with after this.  
 

You should be smart enough to understand there is a difference between THE POINT OF LEGISLATION AND THE DETAILS OF SAID LEGISLATION TO MAKE THAT POINT HAPPEN.  
 

I will go slow for you this time.  The point is to catch people not paying the full amount of income taxes that should be paid.  No one here said POINT is a bad thing.   The MAIN DETAIL in the legislation was the $600 transaction amount. Hopefully you can now engage in honest discourse.  
 

I agreed multiple times 

 

But wait….now it’s NOT the main point and just a distraction????

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/

Quote

We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A “de minimis threshold” is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, “It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn’t worth investigating. It’s the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company’s dime. [The latter] is worth reporting.” In this case, “gross flow” refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. 

 

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):

Quote

The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: “Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.”

 

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:

Quote

According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility “on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600.”

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Republicans are against canceling things.

 

 

 

Well you're currently ranked #46 in public education, Alabama.

 

So the reading and writing ain't working.