Okay, one more thing before I do the prep work that I really, really need to get done: that $750. #TrumpTaxReturns
I don't currently have much substantive to say about it. But I do have a historical note: in 1969, the Treasury Secretary testified to Congress that 155 taxpayers who had income in excess of $200,000 paid no income tax. 2/
That year, the story goes, members of Congress received more letters outraged about this tax nonpayment by the wealthy than they did letters about the Vietnam War. 3/
In response, Congress enacted the alternative minimum tax, which was meant to prevent wealthy people from having no income tax liability. 4/
Now as far as I know, there's no evidence that all of these 155 taxpayers were acting fraudulently or even aggressively. But the idea that very wealthy people could pay no income tax is inherently unfair, and struck people as such. 5/
What I'm saying is, even if it turns out Trump managed to reduce his income tax bill to $750 through a non-aggressive, thoroughly legal method, outrage against the unfairness is both fully predictable and, I think it's fair to say, justified. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today #HunterBiden filed a suit against the @IRSnews alleging that the IRS unlawfully disclosed his tax return info.
So I thought I'd run through the complaint and take a look. (Note that there may be a big break in tweets--I have a meeting shortly.) 1/storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Central to the suit is an allegation that two IRS agents regularly went on network and cable news to discuss audits and criminal investigations against Biden and that this behavior violated the tax law.
The Code provides for not-insignificant civil damages against those who violate it. (Note that largely this applies to federal and state employees and officers, not normal citizens.) 3/ taxnotes.com/research/feder…
Because I have no idea how it applies to me as a professor. Essentially, the training talks about flagging red flags as a financial institution, and especially in dealing with customers.
But here's the thing: even if the university is covered (which I assume it is? 2/
only the training never explained how?), *I* don't deal with student funds. They don't come to me about withdrawals or money or anything like that.
And that absolutely doesn't mean I don't have some kind of Red Flags Law obligation! 3/
I'm thinking I'm going to live-tweet this complaint about Ensign Peak Advisors. Because on the first page it says this: 1/
That's decidedly not true. Currently, the IRS audits about 0.41% to tax returns. That number shoots up for the very wealthy and the very poor, but for the vast majority of Americans, they're never going to face an audit. 2/ trac.syr.edu/reports/706/#:….
I suspect the audit rate for tax-exempt orgs is similarly miniscule. And for religious auxiliary organizations like EPA? Next to zero (if you can be any more next to zero). 3/
There is literally nothing good that can come from @USNewsEducation ranking elementary and middle schools, but there is a ton of potential harms, ranging from discouraging teachers from teaching where they're needed to convincing wealthy and white parents that 2/
they need to sequester their kids from certain schools and neighborhoods.
This is literally the most inequitable and harmful news I can imagine hearing from @USNewsEducation. 3/
I get that Turley likes writing about things he doesn't understand. And I sincerely hope he enjoyed writing about wealth taxes because he very clearly doesn't have a clue what he's writing about. A short thread: 1/
First thing: it's hard to argue that a 2-3% tax is "soaking the rich." The S&P has a long-term average return about 9%.
Now admittedly, people with >$50m aren't investing *all* of their wealth. But their investing a lot of it. 2/
A 2-3% tax will make their money grow more slowly but, unless they're beyond terrible investors, will neither touch principal nor eliminate asset growth. 3/