This is LindaMBeale's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following LindaMBeale's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
LindaMBeale
Recent Activity
You have innuendo but no evidenced based comment. please clarify. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone
So Hobbs, you think sexual assault; cheating of contractors, suppliers, and workers; ripping off of the country through tax scams like his "partnership interest (in a near worthless partnership) for another entity's debt to pretend that you are paying it off and that such a swap allows you to avoid cancellation of debt income"; and every other falsity, bigotry, and suggestion of violence are not MONSTROUSNESS personified? Trump has already suggested that he would just bomb any country he doesn't like. Imagine that stupidity and egocentrism combined with a proclivity for supporting violence as the person with his finger on the nuclear button. It is the most monstrous picture imaginable.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2016 on Why You Should Not Vote for TRUMP at ataxingmatter
Trump is a fool, yes, but he is a hideous monster. His condoning of violence, suggestion of forcing another nation to do his bidding, exclusion of anyone who doesn't agree with him, racism, narcissism, bullying, hatred of anybody that doesn't kowtow to his ego are the worst harbingers for decent foreign policy possible. Clinton has been more hawkish than I like on some matters. But she has demonstrated that she can work with others to arrive at solutions, and she has admitted her mistakes--which means that she is an adult who can learn from her past. Trump is stuck in the fearsome fours, a child tyrant who glorifies in insult and loves authoritarianism, a whiner who is extraordinarily vulnerable to manipulation. He will cotton up to Putin because Putin will know how to pull his strings. He will turn on all his supporters if it benefits his pocketbook or his ego. He has no integrity and has no backbone.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2016 on Why You Should Not Vote for TRUMP at ataxingmatter
You are right, Robert. Some complexity is necessary, and some simplification is possible. But the sound-bite approach to tax policy is doomed to lead to foolish policy choices. I fear that good policy will elude us until we spend more on real education so that the voting public has a deeper understanding and can rebuff the stupid ideas from know nothings like Trump and self-servers like Ryan. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Typepad HTML Email Yes, Jerry, the IRS (not IRA) is the agency that administers the tax code and, under the Treasury Department, interprets it when there are ambiguities. It does not write the tax laws. Congress writes the laws. We should not get rid of the Internal Revenue Code but should redirect some of its provisions to 1) raise the revenues needed to run the government and protect the people and the environment (including public infrastructure) and 2) raise those revenues in ways that do not favor, as so many do now, the wealthy elite, corporate managers, and ‘old’ fossil fuel industries. I heartily agree that we should replace quite a few of the current members of Congress. I’d like to see real progressives replace the stuck-in-the-mud “free marketarianism” gospel group. Linda
Typepad HTML Email If an administrator performs poorly (such as writing off something that isn’t minor as though it were minor), the administrator should be fired. It is quite stupid to penalize an entire agency for a few bad apples (if indeed there were bad apples). Especially when that agency is critical to the functioning of the government. The idea of cutting funding for the IRS has much more to do with the right wing desire to cripple government than it has to do with any desire to improve management. It’s like the stupid iterative investigations of the Secretary of State over Benghazi, compared to the quick death of any investigation into the much worse incidents under Reagan.
Typepad HTML Email If only it were that easy to bring joy everywhere! Thanks, Dan
Typepad HTML Email You are of course right about the point of the appeal. I wasn’t convinced by the petition for certiorari that this case has presented a winning argument for declaring the Tax Court an Article III court. And I think that the jurisdiction at a pre-payment rather than refund stage is a significant detractor from the potentiality of that status.
Typepad HTML Email Glad you are amused. At least you are reading it. Who knows—perhaps someday you will start actually thinking about what is said here. Guess what-- nobody voted in huge numbers in this election! Turnout was abysmally low across the nation and reflects our poor understanding of citizenship—among both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents. We got the result that those voters voted for, in gerrymandered elections where incumbents have huge advantages merely from the way the districts are set up, under the influence of enormous amounts of money poured in –with the floodgate-opening Citizens United decision--anonymously from the oligarchic interests who are quite keen on protecting their economic interest (i.e., on electing Republicans) by misleading and misinforming as much as possible. That’s no mandate in terms of “the people” voting Republicans into power.
Toggle Commented Nov 26, 2014 on Election Puzzle at ataxingmatter
Typepad HTML Email It’s possible but just as likely a result of being misinformed about “crime and national security”. Look where George W. Bush landed us—the quagmire of the ill-considered invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, including thousands dead, thousands wounded, and major costs to taxpayers. The Reagan tripartite stool of tax cuts (for the well-off), deregulation, and militarization remains the Republican’s main platform, and it continues to inflict damage .
Typepad HTML Email Very good point. There are few reporters on national media who are competent to report understandably on fiscal and tax issues, and there is much mouthing of purported “economics 101” truisms that have been, in fact, clearly disproved by actual events. The Wall Street Journal (especially in its editorial pages) repeats ad nauseum assertions derived from Chicago School economic ‘theory’, even if there is an article running at the same time demonstrating that the opposite position has in fact been the more accurate one. And on and on. Of course it is not just the lackluster performance of the media in this area. It is also the lackluster performance of our educational system. One of the best education reforms that schools could and should undertake is the introduction of basic tax courses and government fiscal policy courses at the 7th grade level and on up through high school. I tire of trying to help people understand the difference between a government’s debt burden (which can be eased by printing money, cutting spending or voting more taxes, depending on the overall economic context) and an individual’s or family’s debt burden (which can only be eased by cutting back on other spending or getting a promotion or new job at higher pay). Of course, the right-wingers use this lack of understanding constantly to argue for cutting social welfare programs (but usually not for cutting the tax expenditures that benefit the rich, such as the preference for capital gains, the oil and gas industry subsidies, the lack of a single-payer health care system, etc.). Linda
Toggle Commented Nov 24, 2014 on Election Puzzle at ataxingmatter
Typepad HTML Email I’m not an Ayn Rand fan, as you may imagine, but you have a point, at least on a superficial basis, about the post. The problem with arguing that “Oh, I vote in the country’s best interest” is that, at least on an anecdotal evidence level, many of those voters do claim to be voting in self-interest. Further, on some level voting for “what’s best for the country as a whole” is merely a more accurate way to vote in one’s self-interest, when a broader perspective permits (appropriately, I would say)the voter to understand that we are a community for which sustainable policies (economic, environmental, jobs, what-have-you) are critical.
Typepad HTML Email Hi DryDiggins: David Roberts’ tweets are right on point. And I may blog on Charles Blows’ op-ed later, since it to is prescient. Clearly, it has become more and more obvious that the progressive left is caught between a rock and a hard place—defending the principles of a public polity working for the public good (we lose against amoral right intent only on power and willing to adopt any means to achieve it) or adopting the same tactics as the right (we lose by becoming equally amoral). Meanwhile, the conservative right either doesn’t care about the long-term harm that it is doing, or wants power so badly that it has blinded itself to the long-term harm that it is doing and convinced itself that its seriously flawed policies are working even though the results are disastrous (as in Sam Brownback’s ‘experiment’ with drastic tax cuts resulting in economic stagnation and real detriments to infrastructure, education, etc. --especially once the fact that $700 million of reserve funds have vanished in the short span the revenue cuts have been in effect, and won’t be there to stave off deep harm in the future). Linda
Toggle Commented Nov 17, 2014 on Election Puzzle at ataxingmatter
Thanks to all of you who have expressed your support here and through emails in response to my 'returning to blogging' post. Encouragement does wonders for one's psyche. Linda
Toggle Commented Oct 21, 2014 on Return to Blogging at ataxingmatter
Typepad HTML Email By that criteria, the rather boring, predictable, and obnoxious Nancy Grace—who has a national television audience for her newsopinion programming —must be considered to “get it.” But all she gets, as far as I can see, is that blabbing on and on about her own views on highly charged criminal cases gets her celebrity status.
Typepad HTML Email Kessler’s article is little more than an opinion piece outlining the emotions of the ex-pat community that wanted the anonymous bank account system to continue forever. She assumes that there are very few ex-pat tax cheats but lots of citizens put into an emotionally charged choice of moving assets to relatives’ names or renouncing citizenship. FATCA deals with a real tax evasion problem. Lawyers who represent ex-pats who were holding assets offshore in order to evade taxes tell me that there were many many of these accounts and that most accounts were quite large and had existed for the express purpose of avoiding US taxation. Many of the banks rejecting American deposits are ones that are or think they may be in trouble for the way they have mishandled those accounts (even under the earlier reporting requirements, pre-FATCA, such as the “qualified intermediary” “know your customer” rules). Again, it may be that in some cases American ex-pats find themselves in worrisome positions vis-à-vis their banking choices. But It’s not surprising that an ex-pat abroad might find financing on better terms for a US purchase from a US bank. In many ways, the ex-pat clamor seems to be another version of the radical libertarianism that the elite so often use to justify continuing their lifestyle-- “we liked it the way we had it; we don’t like paying taxes on our capital income”.
Typepad HTML Email Suzanne Laws aren’t perfect, and rules always leave somebody in an awkward situation. That’s part of the price of citizenship. While I can understand anyone’s frustration when they have to pay attention to administrative headaches or have to pay more than they personally think they ought to have to pay, I’m not sure that justifies changing the laws to let everyone in that situation off the hook.
Typepad HTML Email Sorry, Mike. You are the one in the box.
Typepad HTML Email Mike Citizenship carries both benefits and responsibilities. So renounce. Fine with me. But til you do, all I ask is that you comply with the law. As for the exclusion for foreign earned income, one could easily see how the person staying at home could find it unfair that someone from their company working broad for 2-3 years and earning the same or more in gross income from the firm would pay taxes on a very small portion of that. Like the “active business exception” to offshoring company assets, the exclusion acts as an incentive to encourage working abroad and results in tax discrimination against those who don’t do so.
Typepad HTML Email MikeIt appears misleading to me to use state to state movement as equivalent to country to country movement—it is like using an individual household’s revenues and debt as an analogy for thinking about how much debt a sovereign nation with money-creating capacity should take on. The two situations are so different and incommensurable that the analogy leads to quite clearly wrong conclusions. Your point of view has been made clear many times in comments here. You seem uninterested in other points of view.
Typepad HTML Email Mike The tax laws governing nonresident aliens and citizens or resident aliens are determined by Congress—not the IRS and Treasury. People seem to confuse federal law passed by Congress (the laws passed governing the environment, the laws passed governing entry of foreigners into the country, the laws passed governing taxation) with federal regulations (the rules passed by agencies designated by congressional statute to implement particular sets of laws). For example, section 911 of the Internal Revenue Code (the codified set of statutes passed by Congress implementing the federal income tax) governs the tax treatment of “citizens or residents of the United States living abroad”. Section 911(a) provides an election to exclude certain amounts from gross income of a “qualified individual” and 911(d)(1) defines a “qualified individual” as one whose tax home is a foreign country but who is a citizen or resident of the US who satisfies certain residency requirements in the foreign country. The IRS does not make the law. It is an executive agency that enforces the laws. Implementation and enforcement of laws does require interpretation, and the agency designated by Congress (IRS/Treasury) is the primary interpreter of the tax laws. Agencies generally also have some administrative discretion to prioritize enforcement and to allow (hopefully de minimis) variation from expected compliance behavior because of concerns about ability to administer the law fairly without so doing. This is not so different from the discretion exercised by prosecutors etc Linda
Suzanne-you're comment on repatriating versus renouncing goes to the cited article, not my own language. Mike claims that there are no real benefits to holding on to US citizenship. Fine, then anyone who thinks that should renounce (and go through whatever requirements the US law has for doing so, including the tax laws). I'm fine with anyone who has left and is living elsewhere renouncing--it seems like the appropriate thing to do. As for how those who have renounced should be treated post-renunciation when they want to visit the US, etc., that's a matter for legislative consideration. Not my area of expertise by any means and I haven't really given it much thought.
Typepad HTML Email Laura: You say, as a given, that “there shouldn’t be any penalty or stigma attached to expatriation.” That’s an opinion, not a statement of fact. And one could come up with a variety of arguments on both sides. We generally rely on the legislative process to iron those out. My view is that FATCA’s disclosure and reporting rules regarding offshore bank accounts are reasonable rules that seek transparency around the process of holding assets offshore. And they serve as a means of preventing tax evasion under the current rules.
Typepad HTML Email Mike You say “everyone should have the right to end a citizenship with any country without penalty or attack for doing so.” That, like so many of your statements, may sound reasonable on the surface, but when you look at it, it is not so clear. From birth to death, persons and entities located in a country exact a toll on everything from natural resource allocations to roads and parks to various forms of physical and intangible infrastructure. One could think of this as an imputed charge associated with the tangible and intangible benefits of participating as a citizen/formed entity in a country—a charge that citizens and entities are not ordinarily called upon to pay. But if a person or entity decides to “exit” the country, then that would be the logical point to have the imputed unpaid charge transform into a real charge (an exit tax). I think your statement also confuses “free will” and “ability to satisfy requirements for implementing certain decisions”. Linda
Typepad HTML Email If indeed some are repatriating because they don’t want to comply with the law and think this will allow them to avoid it, odds are that they ALREADY have failed to comply with the law and pay taxes in this income (they have been required to report these accounts long before FATCA).