3 ms·

I definitely think the wealthy should be held to a higher standard than the poor. Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justificati

I definitely think the wealthy should be held to a higher standard than the poor. Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. There is evidence he worked out a deal with the removal of deductions regarding his charity... why did they remove those deductions? If he’s entitled to them... clearly it was done as a negotiating piece. How many average Joe’s have 180 million in deductions to negotiate with?

vmception 6y ago
> why did they remove those deductions? yes, it is 3-pronged a) easy to identify b) liquidity, easy to use for payment c) kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback c might sound annoying, but the revenue service has the primary goal of revenue. replenishing the treasury so it can make its own interest payments. you might say, "well take that and still jail the people". okay, I guess. it could have happened here. all parties in this case acknowledge that a court case would not have any guaranteed results, specifically because of your second sentence: > Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. The justification is actually broader. Like, sure if the billionaire lacks a justification for paying yes, but the reality is that the government doesn't know WHICH justification the billionaire is using. That's the game. They can be totally blindsided. And then there's the jury, yeah sure a jury with populist sentiment against billionaires combined with a jury judging a black man, doesn't sound great for the defendant but that overlooks everything that was attempted. The man tried to use the amnesty program that the US government set up, and the government denied him! The man already snitched for the government on his first investor who set him up for life! The man tried filing amended tax returns. The jury might actually take a dim view on the state for that, I could totally see a hung jury. And then his lawyers can totally drop some legal opinions they made years ago that showed a justification the government didn't expect at all, shifting liability away from the defendant.

vmception 6y ago

> why did they remove those deductions? yes, it is 3-pronged a) easy to identify b) liquidity, easy to use for payment c) kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback c might sound annoying, but the revenue service has the primary goal of revenue. replenishing the treasury so it can make its own interest payments. you might say, "well take that and still jail the people". okay, I guess. it could have happened here. all parties in this case acknowledge that a court case would not have any guaranteed results, specifically because of your second sentence: > Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. The justification is actually broader. Like, sure if the billionaire lacks a justification for paying yes, but the reality is that the government doesn't know WHICH justification the billionaire is using. That's the game. They can be totally blindsided. And then there's the jury, yeah sure a jury with populist sentiment against billionaires combined with a jury judging a black man, doesn't sound great for the defendant but that overlooks everything that was attempted. The man tried to use the amnesty program that the US government set up, and the government denied him! The man already snitched for the government on his first investor who set him up for life! The man tried filing amended tax returns. The jury might actually take a dim view on the state for that, I could totally see a hung jury. And then his lawyers can totally drop some legal opinions they made years ago that showed a justification the government didn't expect at all, shifting liability away from the defendant.