Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
You make it sound like putting a bill before congress matters.
Your example of putting a bill forward that will never pass the senate or president makes this moot. This is very simple. Your point is irrational. If people you don't like, don't attempt to do something that will never work, then you get to decide what they "want".
Okay, using that logic, I can define that YOU don't want it either, because you've not run for congress, won, and put forth that bill. So clearly, I can now decide what YOU want based on you not having done that.
See how that doesn't make sense? Just because Nancy, or you, haven't done X doesn't mean you don't want it to happen, it means neither of you have wasted the time on something that isn't relevant. Very, very simple. You are correct
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
No, it's their job to process one itty bitty piece of financial records. It's NOT their job or within their power to go beyond that nor their ability to expose things that they find.
It's very, very much not their job at all.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
NO... and what laws.. Let's say trump's wife gave the taxes to NYT - do you think that is illegal?
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes.. but not IRS to go after them.. that would be the justice system.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
If you have nothing to hide, you don't have need of encryption. That's a simple equation. The fundamental law of security is based on that, in fact. That's the law that says you only need to protect data to the level to which obtaining the data is more costly than its value.
If your data has no value, there's no need for even a modicum of protection. That's why I can leave my tax returns on a park bench safely, I have nothing to hide. Even giving the info away doesn't put me at risk.
That has nothing to do with trying to take away the right of encryption. Don't mix the two together. The point being, the market protects us from media leaks of unimportant everyday, everyman data.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes.. but not IRS to go after them.. that would be the justice system.
I don't think that that's what he was meaning. He was meaning Trumps statements about his income.
Which we now know were false, and that the IRS did nothing, and that they weren't allowed to do anything. So we've established that the IRS protection theory isn't accurate. The IRS does not uphold the law, they just process payments and the math used in those payments.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
NO... and what laws.. Let's say trump's wife gave the taxes to NYT - do you think that is illegal?
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes.. but not IRS to go after them.. that would be the justice system.
I was responding directly to your statement and nothing about the Trump situation.
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes
What's funny is... power of attorney is listed explicitly as an allowed disclosure. That's in the federal statutes on the matter. It's one of the rare "allowed" instead of just "disallowed" law cases. FindLaw listed it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes
What's funny is... power of attorney is listed explicitly as an allowed disclosure. That's in the federal statutes on the matter. It's one of the rare "allowed" instead of just "disallowed" law cases. FindLaw listed it.
Oh... K... tax attorney not equal power of attorney, unless you were just pointing out a different side fact?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
But why should they bother? They know it will NEVER pass.
You could ask the manager to sell your a big mac at BK for $0.10, but the chances he'll go for it are nill, so do you really want to waste your time?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
Hold on - Are the audits even true? If they are, lucky I guess, if they are not, the IRS, because of privacy can't confirm or deny...
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
And my point is that your point is wrong. We know what your point is. I've debunked it. You aren't addressing what I've said, just repeating the case that I've addressed.
They aren't in an actual position to get the bill through, so stating over and over again that they are at fault doesn't mean anything. Unless YOU or THEY actually have the power to do something, you don't then blame them or you for not doing something pointless, right?
If you do, then it's your fault as much as theirs. If not, then it isn't their fault either.
