The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Atocep]

I recommend those stuck on laws to check out the book Three Felonies a Day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

US Supreme Court deals blow to labor unions, ruling 5-4 that public sector unions may not collect mandatory fees from non-members | Fox News

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The administration has repeatedly indicated it intends to reduce 'legal' immigration - that is one of the reasons a lot of businesses are finding it hard to get casual labor in shrimping industry and such because the number of visa's allowed has been reduced drastically.

I thought you were referring to our FOFC discussion that's been going on for 2-3 pages. That is why I responded as I did because I thought you were referencing me or others on the board.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - There are a huge number of 'laws' to which lip-service is generally given within a society because they're seen as out dated or not constructive, heck even some very sensible laws are flouted or enforced incredibly liberally in many states.

So is your counterpoint "why enforce the immigration laws when there are so many other laws not enforced?" If it is, let's settle on one or two laws (non-immigration) that you believe rises to the same level of degree/equivalence/whatever?

[JPhillips]

We barely enforce or investigate white collar crime, financial crime in particular. Why is the outrage so great regarding immigration, but almost non-existent regarding white collar crime? For me, it's not that we should ignore immigration crime, it's just that the heat around the issue doesn't match the severity of the problem and most of the reasons given for the seriousness of immigration crime are ignored when discussing other crimes.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We barely enforce or investigate white collar crime, financial crime in particular. Why is the outrage so great regarding immigration, but almost non-existent regarding white collar crime? For me, it's not that we should ignore immigration crime, it's just that the heat around the issue doesn't match the severity of the problem and most of the reasons given for the seriousness of immigration crime are ignored when discussing other crimes.

One is human perfection we should all strive to be. The other are terrorist cockroaches to be dehumanized and eliminated.

Obviously.

[Kodos]

Well said! Bernie Madoff was a hero!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think anyone has said its a "net negative" but it may have been inferred by some. I think there are several of us that believe -- if you have immigration laws, enforce them. If you don't like the immigration laws, change or reform them. But you can't have people "flaunting" the laws.

And I have not seen anyone say -- no more or greatly reduce "legal" immigration.

You haven't paid attention. That was the crux of the Administration's immigration framework when Bannon was still in the White House - the idea that not only do we need to crack down on illegal immigration, we need to end or severely restrict ALL immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We barely enforce or investigate white collar crime, financial crime in particular. Why is the outrage so great regarding immigration, but almost non-existent regarding white collar crime? For me, it's not that we should ignore immigration crime, it's just that the heat around the issue doesn't match the severity of the problem and most of the reasons given for the seriousness of immigration crime are ignored when discussing other crimes.

I don't what your definition of "white collar crime" or "financial crime" is but barely and non-existent doesn't tie to this report. If you have other stats to support your statement, please share it.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs_wcc.pdf

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why is the outrage so great regarding immigration

Traditionally people tend to react negatively to being invaded.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You haven't paid attention. That was the crux of the Administration's immigration framework when Bannon was still in the White House - the idea that not only do we need to crack down on illegal immigration, we need to end or severely restrict ALL immigration.

I have been paying attention. Please refer to #10687 and #10715 for an explanation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Traditionally people tend to react negatively to being invaded.

I was wondering where you were the past 2-3 pages.

Pretty sure you are more extreme than me though

[JPhillips]

Just to look at one item, tax fraud is estimated to cost the treasury over 300 billion a year and we keep cutting funding to the IRS and making it more difficult to investigate those crimes.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was wondering where you were the past 2-3 pages.

Pretty sure you are more extreme than me though

I feel like Jon is basically the extreme of most of my view points. That is we, by and large, agree he just takes things 1,2 or 47,000 steps farther than I. Yet the older I get the more curmudgeonly I get and I wonder if I am simply looking at myself in a 20 year time warp.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just to look at one item, tax fraud is estimated to cost the treasury over 300 billion a year and we keep cutting funding to the IRS and making it more difficult to investigate those crimes.

Will the current tax reform and streamlining of itemized deductions improve that? Or are we just writing that off as a failure before its even taken affect?

[JPhillips]

I doubt it will matter much as there were very few changes regarding what corporations and the wealthy can do. There isn't much fraud, at least in dollar value, among the bottom 80-90% of filers.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I doubt it will matter much as there were very few changes regarding what corporations and the wealthy can do. There isn't much fraud, at least in dollar value, among the bottom 80-90% of filers.

If you streamline the code, it should make it easier to identify those committing tax fraud. Therefore, you should be able to get by with fewer IRS agents.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You haven't paid attention. That was the crux of the Administration's immigration framework when Bannon was still in the White House - the idea that not only do we need to crack down on illegal immigration, we need to end or severely restrict ALL immigration.

I fall into the camp of needing to enforce our immigration laws, and am relatively ambivalent to whether we decide to increase or decrease the amount of immigration we allow.

I would rather err on the side of restricting too much, as at least we are enforcing our laws, than fall on the side of being too lax in our laws.

[Ryche]

All for more legal immigration. The country is aging rapidly and birth rates falling. Immigration is going to be an important component in holding off those trends.

[JPhillips]

In 2017, for the first time white deaths were greater than white births. Unless we want to be 90s-2000s Russia, we need a greater inflow of immigrants.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If you streamline the code, it should make it easier to identify those committing tax fraud. Therefore, you should be able to get by with fewer IRS agents.

But for the people that account for most of the fraud the code hasn't been made simpler. Corporations and the top 10% still have numerous ways to hide income and avoid taxes.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But for the people that account for most of the fraud the code hasn't been made simpler. Corporations and the top 10% still have numerous ways to hide income and avoid taxes.

If we simplify things so that we do not need to look at the lower 90% and just focus on the top 10%, we can concentrate resources. Additionally, we can continue to rationalize the tax code. We do not need to stop after one step.

EDIT: From a business standpoint, it helps as well. Accounting functions bring no value to a customer. Engineering, production, marketing, and sales functions either bring value, or can bring value if implemented properly. By divesting themselves of overhead, companies can become more flexible as well. Finally, if we get more accountants out of running businesses, that is a win in my book as companies will become more innovative and look long term rather than the next fiscal cycle (whatever it may be).

[JPhillips]

Are you talking about the current code or what you would like to see in a future code? I'm talking about the tax code as it stands, although I will point out that it got that way because the rich and corporations have lobbied for it to be that way.

edit: In theory you're right, I just don't think the people paying for Congress are going to allow that to happen. The tax code as it is works really well for them.

[Scoobz0202]

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is retiring.

The Supreme Court was one of my worst fears with this presidency.

[Subby]

Next year Trump could have control of all three branches of our government. That either gives you an enormous boner or scares the shit out of you. If you are in the latter group (hi!), you better do everything in your power this fall to keep that scenario from happening.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In our discussion about proper use of term illegal vs undocumented, I found it interesting that "brown" has been used in related discussions.

I don't know so I am asking - I would never use or thought to use the word "brown people" to describe Hispanics or Latinos. Is this acceptable?

I wouldn't have thought to use the term "brown" because, although not dehumanizing per the debate re: the word illegal, it seems akin to "black" vs African American or referring to a chinese person as "yellow".

I assumed context would have made the use obvious. But my wrong I guess, I also summed you were aware of, up until Monday, the most recent landmark immigration case.

[JPhillips]

A system where a minority of voters controls the Presidency, a minority of voters control the House, a minority of voters control the Senate, and a stolen Supreme Court seat means control of the Supreme Court is not a system that will lead to civility and stability.

[Neuqua]

This is the #1 thing I was afraid of.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I assumed context would have made the use obvious. But my wrong I guess, I also summed you were aware of, up until Monday, the most recent landmark immigration case.

I guess.

[AENeuman]

Trying not to be redundant because JPhillips is saying everything I would say but better...

Here’s how I see it.
1. The “anti” immigration side seems to make this a personal thing. Illegals are invaders in a constant state of trespassing, and that feels embarrassing

2. I’m arguing for making it about the things, not the people. We are being invaded by drugs and weapons, not people.

3. I think it is absolutely hypocritical and irrational to make it about the people when 1) our government and economy are exploiting them with abandon 2) not one person benefiting from the people are willing to give up/ boycott their benefits 3) again drugs, they do only harm and no good, but instead the single focus is a people that do mostly good in an economy that is dependent upon them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'll agree and concede the second point regarding FICA. Its the first that I think most bury their head in the sand over.

Specifically in construction trades we are talking real money. Solid middle class. The 2 employees I referenced earlier- with a quick check one made 64k last year the other made 48k but he started in May.

In my area, at least, it isnt min wage jobs. It is unskilled or semi skilled labor (13-22)/hr and averaging 55 hours per week. In that case, depending of course on true numbers and scale, the dollars at play could be significant.

They still wouldn't be paying much. A married man with 2 kids would maybe pay $200 in federal income tax on $50k. They'll pay $7,650 in social security and Medicare.

Government is in the black unless the person is making well into the 6-figures when the social security portion is phased out. Not sure there are many illegal immigrants making that kind of money (otherwise they'd be on a special work visa).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by corbes

Glad the Democrats wasted their last filibuster on Gorsuch. That would be a handy tool at the moment.

Why would it be any more useful this time?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Will the current tax reform and streamlining of itemized deductions improve that? Or are we just writing that off as a failure before its even taken affect?

People making under $200k are a small portion of the problem. Sure they fudge some areas but it's still a few hundred here or there. The issue is corporations and wealthier individuals who can funnel money through offshore sites. A lot of that is either legal or the US has no way of stopping it under current agreements.

Take Panama for instance which has become a notorious tax haven. They help funnel billions away. Now the U.S. could simply say to Panama "we need you to disclose any dealings you have with U.S. companies". We demand a lot in trade deals from other countries. But we don't because the people making the laws don't want their friends and donors to have to pay taxes.

We have a system in place where companies can permanently defer their offshore earnings that we could stop overnight. We could demand states be more transparent with the ownership of companies registered. We could demand multinational companies that import large amounts of goods fall under our jurisdiction. Not allow executives to skirt income tax by accurately valuing the stock they receive for their services. Some of this stuff was in the recent tax bill but got axed when lobbyists got their hands on it.

Put it this way. Amazon made over $5.6 billion in profits last year. They are an American company that predominately operates out of America. They paid $0 in federal taxes last year on the $5.6 billion in profits. In fact, Amazon got a $137 million tax refund from taxpayers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by corbes

Fall elections and ideological shift

That would only matter if they get enough votes to thwart the nuclear option. And if they have enough votes to thwart the nuclear options, then they have enough votes to reject the nominee.

[JPhillips]

I don't see any reason to believe that McConnell would allow a filibuster on any SC nominee regardless of what Dems have done prior. The GOP doesn't care about norms, only power.

[larrymcg421]

And getting rid of the filibuster may be the only good thing to happen from this 4 year shit show of a Presidency.

[JPhillips]

Conservatives are MUCH more driven to vote due to the Supreme Court. Why would any senator help kill a GOP nominee and then face a very motivated, angry GOP electorate?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by corbes

think bigger--the nuclear option plays totally different in the middle of election season. there's reason to think that some of the outgoing and at-risk GOP senators might not play nice on that issue given different timing, and either way the nuclear option in the middle of election season galvanizes everything with much greater intensity.

But you need the same number of votes to stop the nuclear option as you do to reject the nominee. Who are you suggesting would've supported a filibuster, but also vote yes on the nominee?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by corbes

also: it makes all the difference to replace kennedy, as opposed to replacing scalia

Not to the GOP. Collins has already come out saying that she'll basically vote for anyone nominated.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People making under $200k are a small portion of the problem. Sure they fudge some areas but it's still a few hundred here or there. The issue is corporations and wealthier individuals who can funnel money through offshore sites. A lot of that is either legal or the US has no way of stopping it under current agreements.

Take Panama for instance which has become a notorious tax haven. They help funnel billions away. Now the U.S. could simply say to Panama "we need you to disclose any dealings you have with U.S. companies". We demand a lot in trade deals from other countries. But we don't because the people making the laws don't want their friends and donors to have to pay taxes.

We have a system in place where companies can permanently defer their offshore earnings that we could stop overnight. We could demand states be more transparent with the ownership of companies registered. We could demand multinational companies that import large amounts of goods fall under our jurisdiction. Not allow executives to skirt income tax by accurately valuing the stock they receive for their services. Some of this stuff was in the recent tax bill but got axed when lobbyists got their hands on it.

Put it this way. Amazon made over $5.6 billion in profits last year. They are an American company that predominately operates out of America. They paid $0 in federal taxes last year on the $5.6 billion in profits. In fact, Amazon got a $137 million tax refund from taxpayers.

I understand corporate tax evasion tactics. As a business owner perhaps I wish I understood them better, lol.
But that really isnt central to the point. The question was asked what harm illegal immigrants cause and it was suggested that they net benefit the income tax base because they don't get their tax refunds since they do not file. I was simply pointing out that they are not due a refund because of the way MOST (not all) fill out their pre-employment tax forms.



If there are 5M immigrant workers skirting 2,000 each in federal tax that is $10 billion. I dont know if the 5m number or the 2k number are accurate but I suspect they are close.


Besides all that, the point isnt "Since American corps commit tax fraud we should ignore illegal entry into our country".

That's non-sensical. It's sort of interesting you are one of the ones who tries to point out the supposed hypocrisy of comparing other death rates to firearm death rates and trumpets that all deaths matter. Yet in this argument, since corporations steal - it should be ok for illegal immigrants to steal?


Here is a novel concept - How about stop both?


Then again maybe if we drive away enough corporations, maybe it will solve the immigration problem. I mean a poverty stricken land with no jobs and a gluten of unemployable workers is what they are leaving. If we turn America into that maybe it will be less desirable. Thats a hell of a long game, Ill give you that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So is your counterpoint "why enforce the immigration laws when there are so many other laws not enforced?" If it is, let's settle on one or two laws (non-immigration) that you believe rises to the same level of degree/equivalence/whatever?

I think it's fair to ask why certain laws are seen as important and others aren't. If I saw a cop busting someone for smoking weed while a stabbing across the street was being ignored, I'd wonder why.

Financial fraud and tax evasions is a rather huge issue. It hurts average citizens in countless ways and builds an economic system that is not fair. It's fair to wonder why the SEC is cutting back on enforcement when insider trading is so prevalent. Why the IRS is seeing massive budget cuts when tax avoidance is at an all-time high.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by corbes

And, while the result is secondary to the point I'm trying inartfully to make, there have been some senators who expressed heightened concern about regular legislative order since the time when Gorsuch was nominated.

And they were lying. There's not a single member of the GOP senate that gives a shit about process, I know because I was alive for Garland. They either only care about winning or are unwilling to put their ass on the line to defend their principles.

And it works for them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If there are 5M immigrant workers skirting 2,000 each in federal tax that is $10 billion. I dont know if the 5m number or the 2k number are accurate but I suspect they are close.

I'm simply telling you that most of these people would not be paying in federal income taxes even if they were legal. Between the standard deductions and child tax credits, you have to make a good chunk of money to offset the FICA they pay in and receive nothing in return for.

If they were legal, they'd be eligible for earned income credit, food stamps, CHIP, Medicaid, WIC, TANF, housing assistance, and Obamacare.

The point is that an illegal immigrant making $40,000 is much better for our Treasury than a legal resident making $40,000. I'm not arguing anything else here. Just the math.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Here is a novel concept - How about stop both?

I am fine with that. I have no problem with stopping illegal immigration in a dignified way. The only thing I've spoken out against is using concentration camps and letting businesses off the hook for breaking the law.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Then again maybe if we drive away enough corporations, maybe it will solve the immigration problem. I mean a poverty stricken land with no jobs and a gluten of unemployable workers is what they are leaving. If we turn America into that maybe it will be less desirable. Thats a hell of a long game, Ill give you that.

I don't get this. Is it too much to ask them to obey the law? To pitch in a few bucks for the infrastructure and economic stability they reap benefits from? What am I proposing that is too hard for companies to abide by and give them reason to abandon the biggest economy in the world?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's fair to ask why certain laws are seen as important and others aren't. If I saw a cop busting someone for smoking weed while a stabbing across the street was being ignored, I'd wonder why.

Financial fraud and tax evasions is a rather huge issue. It hurts average citizens in countless ways and builds an economic system that is not fair. It's fair to wonder why the SEC is cutting back on enforcement when insider trading is so prevalent. Why the IRS is seeing massive budget cuts when tax avoidance is at an all-time high.

I agree, its fair to look into it and I appreciate you providing your thoughts. Can you provide a link(s) that you believe summarizes your position and let me react to it?

Also, my understanding is tax avoidance is not a crime. I assume you mean tax evasion?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am fine with that. I have no problem with stopping illegal immigration in a dignified way. The only thing I've spoken out against is using concentration camps and letting businesses off the hook for breaking the law.

I agree with this also, I think we can and should do both. The demand side (companies) should definitely be address in addition to the supply.

You use the word concentration camps (and assume there's a little hyperbole in there). I don't think anyone on the board disagrees that separating the children from the parents is bad.

Other than the children aspect, I think "dignified" is pretty open for interpretation. It could mean keep them detained in better conditions or, to the extreme, could mean let them live/work freely in the US while waiting for whatever processing needs to be done. How would you define "dignified" or give some examples.

[RainMaker]

It's not hyperbole, it's word-for-word the definition. A concentration camp is "a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined". We tie it to the Nazis naturally but there have been concentration camps for awhile now.

Concentration Camp | Definition of Concentration Camp by Merriam-Webster

I don't know the exact solution for a dignified way of handling it. Maybe it's housing them in nicer conditions until a decision is made. Letting them use an ankle monitor. Or maybe it's hiring more Judges and attorneys to expedite the process so they aren't in legal limbo for months/years. This would have the added benefit of not having to pay to house them (although it seems the government wants to house them for long periods of time).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not hyperbole, it's word-for-word the definition. A concentration camp is "a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined". We tie it to the Nazis naturally but there have been concentration camps for awhile now.

Concentration Camp | Definition of Concentration Camp by Merriam-Webster

Okay, when you said "concentration camp" my mind went to WW2 examples. I do not believe what is happening now rises near to that level but I understand it is more the general definition and not the Nazi version.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree, its fair to look into it and I appreciate you providing your thoughts. Can you provide a link(s) that you believe summarizes your position and let me react to it?

Also, my understanding is tax avoidance is not a crime. I assume you mean tax evasion?

Not sure there is a link to summarize my position. It's just that I think financial crimes are abundant and overlooked. Study finds that 25% of all mergers and acquisitions of public companies involve insider trading. That is a huge blow to the average person who has a 401k or some casual investments.

The financial collapse from a decade ago screwed a lot of people over. Banks and financial institutions committing fraud to push more mortgages. When that bubble burst, it didn't just hurt the people who took out bad mortgages, it hurt the property value of everyone with a home. It cost people jobs because their legit companies weren't able to borrow money to make payroll because the banks were in trouble.

My stance is that this should be taken more seriously. The SEC funds itself yet is told to back down. White collar crimes hurt everyone. Not just the people involved in the transaction. And the lack of prosecutions following the financial collapse shows that they were literally above the law.

As for taxes, I mean both evasion and avoidance. We need new laws in place that make it harder for companies predominately operating out of this country to funnel their money through shell companies offshore to avoid taxes. We need our government to make better trade deals that will help in stopping evasion as well.

An example is Panama. We made a trade deal with them and had a lot of leverage in the negotiations. Yet we left out all the stuff on tax evasion. Why didn't we demand that they stop aiding in these crimes and make the deal contingent on them helping us in pursuing them? The answer is obvious. Some wealthy people bought your politicians.

Panama–United States Trade Promotion Agreement - Wikipedia

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm simply telling you that most of these people would not be paying in federal income taxes even if they were legal. Between the standard deductions and child tax credits, you have to make a good chunk of money to offset the FICA they pay in and receive nothing in return for.

If they were legal, they'd be eligible for earned income credit, food stamps, CHIP, Medicaid, WIC, TANF, housing assistance, and Obamacare.

Many if not most recieve totally free healthcare through the emergency room loophole.
WIC (food stamps) they are eligible for without citizenship or documentation. Same goes for HUD assistance. They dont need citizenship to receive that.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The point is that an illegal immigrant making $40,000 is much better for our Treasury than a legal resident making $40,000. I'm not arguing anything else here. Just the math.

You may be right. I dont know. I dont think either of us can say definitively.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I am fine with that. I have no problem with stopping illegal immigration in a dignified way. The only thing I've spoken out against is using concentration camps and letting businesses off the hook for breaking the law.

This is where we start to diverge a bit. You want to be treated in a dignified way? Carry yourself with some dignity. Dont sneak into a country you aren't allowed in. I have much more understanding and leniency for the expired work visa issue. But the straight out illegal immigrants, don't complain abut the conditions of the situation that you solely created.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get this. Is it too much to ask them to obey the law? To pitch in a few bucks for the infrastructure and economic stability they reap benefits from? What am I proposing that is too hard for companies to abide by and give them reason to abandon the biggest economy in the world?

We'd have to get into specifics here..which would just derail the entire thread. Are you talking straight out tax evasion, or are you talking tax avoidance? Avoidance is sound business strategy, evasion is illegal. Dont like the laws that allow avoidance, fine change the laws. But dont cry because someone follows them.


It just seems like a lot of sour grapes crying because there are a whole lot more opposing view folks than you'd ever like to believe.

[RainMaker]

Also I'm not trying to make a "fuck the rich" rant. I'm just saying I think everyone should have to play by the same rules. If my company pays federal taxes, Amazon should too. If I have to follow laws related to financial fraud, banks should too.

Why do I have a feeling that if you or I laundered money for drug cartels and helped fund terrorists, we'd probably be in jail?

HSBC spared further US money laundering sanctions as it battles to clean up its act