418
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
418 points (99.3% liked)
News
23388 readers
1612 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They were millionaires, not billionaires.
Millionaires who didn't pay their taxes.
Which is illegal.
Sure. My point is, they voluntarily complied, after receiving notices, and aren't the billionaires who can afford to fight it flee.
This is what is known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
I disagree.
If @Maeve@kbin.earth had said "They were millionaires, not billionaires, so the IRS should stop pursuing it." THAT would be "perfect is the enemy of good".
Instead this is like:
A: "We cured cancer! Hurray!"
B: "Apparently we only cured Pink Eye. So, awesome on that as it reduces some human suffering, but we still need to keep working on curing cancer too."
Thank you.
If you say so. I'm not mad or disappointed, just noticed. I'm glad they voluntarily complied. Saves taxpayers the cost of prosecution.
Does that somehow mean they’re not rich?
They probably mean that we're still not targeting the right people. Well, all of the right people. Millionaires are definitely still on that list.
Side question. What is most people's definition of "rich" these days?
Is it:
or
Obviously both can be true, depending on perspective. But being rich is a spectrum.
If you’re a poor studen, the 40 year old who can pay cash for a car but cannot retire still may seem rich but could very well be firmly middle class.
Someone in their 20s who never has to work is more likely to be considered rich by most anyone’s standards. But someone in their 70s who is living modestly in retirement would still meet your second definition but few would consider them actually rich.
I think using net worth is a better measuring stick. In the US someone worth more than $10m is almost certainly living very well off and most would consider them rich.
I agree with everything you said. However, your usage in your post didn't seem to speak to age or a sliding spectrum, but something more objective. It felt you had envisioned someone who was "rich" by your own definition. I was curious what kind of person/net worth you were thinking about when that was posted.
Well the $70,000 average recouped per person in this effort would certainly imply that those targeted are indeed “rich”, or at least high income.
So an annual before tax income of $218,750 is considered rich then? (32% is the tax rate which would produce $70,000 tax liability in a single year). I understand this is purely subjective. There's no right or wrong answer. I appreciate you sharing your view.
I mean, yeah? Kind of? I’d say it’s at least lower-upper class, which some people may consider rich. But, again, in my head rich is more about net worth, not income. Once someone’s investments are working for them then I’d say that’s a key indicator.