Free Republic

I love FEE. But, let’s reduce it to four words:

No incentives, no effort.

Which has been the downfall of every socialist society ever invented. Simple as that.

As the running joke among the proletariat in the former USSR (and every socialist/commie country ever since) went: “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.”

No reward, no effort. No reward, no innovation. No reward, no investment.

The Fed refuses to be audited?

Huh. Yet another ill-informed conspiracist tries to spread yet another tall tale about the Fed.

Contrary to your no-doubt fervent belief, the Fed System BoG and all 12 Fed district banks are audited annually. This actually happens despite any feverish imaginations you may have otherwise.

Here, try this link:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/audited-annual-financial-statements.htm

If that’s not enough for you, try poking around on the Fed site. They get audited 10 ways from Sunday by everybody and their brother. Mostly by Inspectors General from whatever agency. And there’s a lot of them with a newly discovered “interest.” Especially since 2008.

While you’re at it, try this also:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html

It’s the DAILY (if you want it) Treasury report on all sorts of interesting stuff, including a ton of info from the Fed. I find a lot of useful investment info there. YMMV.

Seems that you’re a little out of date on your tin-foil hat Fed theories, like, say, “they refuse to be audited.” I’ve heard this nonsense from many people for 15 years and it’s NEVER been true.

That sort of rubbish is, however, very popular. The evil Fed is out to get everyone. Always and everywhere, no matter what or who you are.

Nonsense. It’s nothing but the usual government screwing everything up as they always do. Makes for a great excuse for failure, huh? It’s a grand conspiracy!

It sounds a bit like a few tax protestors I ran across maybe 5 years ago. For quite a while, they’ve either been in prison or wondering when they’ll get there or be hit with final civil judgments for taxes due as none of their legal “claims” or “theories” ever went according to plan in court.

Believing any conspiracy theory has to be a terrible way to go through life.

I think that you’re missing this idiot’s point, such as it is.

His idea is that the Treasury should start printing US notes once again.

But, neither US notes nor FRNs have any “cost” other than the cost of printing, which is the same and very small.

Neither is redeemable for gold or silver. There’s no point to doing it.

This might make sense in you’re Maduro in Venezuela printing new gold-backed bolivars, but nobody would believe you.

That poor slob can’t get anyone to print currency for him at all. The entire lot of a print run isn’t worth the cost of it. Seize the entire run of brand-new “bolivars”? Eh, why bother? It’s only worth about 10 cents.

Kind of like the worth of this thread, based, such as it is on a totally bogus article.

Ah, I was making a point with my CAPS, I’m sure you got it.

You’ll notice that nobody has taken exception to any of the points I made or facts I pointed out. To include you.

The garbage article that is the basis of the original post of this thread is still garbage and should be deleted, it’s total nonsense and junk.

I hate Wilson. He was a disaster.

As I said, the FRA was worded inappropriately, no doubt because the progressives wanted the Fed to sound like some sort of private company, which it most certainly wasn’t and has never been.

The IRS goes back to 50 years before Wilson in various forms. I have no problem with the FIT other than that it should be a flat 10% or less.

The 17th Amendment absolutely should be repealed. Nothing about Wilson gives me pause, he makes me want to retch.

Mixed institution? Not really.

The 7 government appointed members of the Fed BoG control it absolutely — it IS the US central bank. Period.

They can do whatever they think is best, even if it’s terribly wrong-headed and includes, say, bailing out idiot banks and other lenders that should have been allowed to fail.

They tried that once, hopefully never again. They can’t do much against a Congress and President who want to screw over taxpayers and bondholders of bankrupt automakers.

If the Fed didn’t have their stupid “employment” mandate, they could have leaned against the spending on bankrupt automakers. Instead, they supported it. It saved a few jobs that wouldn’t have been lost anyway had the assets been sold off in BK court to another automaker.

The Fed is really not much good at their job, perhaps because they still think that low unemployment rates lead to inflation, so they muck around with rates that they should leave to the market. They’re always conflicted — inflation versus jobs/growth.

All while trying to unwind all of the MBS crap, etc. that they bought under Jug-Ears in their pursuit of “stability” and now trying to not raise rates “too much.” They dug their own, essentially mandated hole.

I don’t think I could go for the Hamilton/Washington model/solution today as that would mean who? Goldman-Sachs?

Better to change the Fed mandate to purely economic growth, with some sort of very vague proviso that only inflation over 3% (or whatever, pick your rate) is even worth worrying about.

Yes, you can have 5% growth with next to no inflation. Growth and prosperity and the resulting innovation drive down prices all by themselves.

If we assume some inflation, 2 or 3% devastates bondholders over 20-30 years. Turns the entire national debt into relative peanuts in 30 years — and we’ve already been chugging along at 2% for 2 decades.

Long bonds (30 years) are not something I own or would want to own.

Don’t be ridiculous. Your article is pure and total, unadulterated hogwash.

The Federal Reserve System Board of Governors is a FEDERAL AGENCY created by FEDERAL LAW. All 7 members of the Board are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The System BoG formulates monetary policy. The System BoG is where reserve requirements are set, where the discount rate is set, and where rules and regulations are adopted.

The 7 System BoG members are a PERMANENT MAJORITY of the 12 member Federal Open Market Committee, the other 5 rotating voting members being regional bank presidents, elected by the member bank “shareholders.”

The Chairman of the System BoG is also the Chairman of the FOMC.

The FOMC implements System BoG monetary policy. The FOMC is where fed funds target rates are set, where margin rates are set, and is responsible for open market operations to carry out policy.

The System BoG and the FOMC are where ALL of the actual power of the Fed resides.

The boards of the regional banks can suggest changes in the discount rate, but the System BoG must approve them or nothing happens.

Other than that, the primary function of the regional Fed banks is to provide services like check clearing and FedWire to member banks. ACH and such. They do the scut work and a lot of research, and their presidents give speeches.

Nobody with any clue claims that “the Fed” is private, it’s a 100% GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED operation, member bank “shares” in the regional Fed banks notwithstanding.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I dislike the Fed because it’s nothing but central government tinkering with economic policy via monetary policy and they usually get things wrong.

I do not, however, subscribe to laughable conspiracy theories and non-factual rubbish cooked up by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

The Fed was created to prevent periodic financial runs and panics and other financial chaos. I think they do a horrible job, but that’s just the usual unintended consequences of any government activity and whether “the Fed” is a net benefit or detriment is open to debate. What’s not debatable is whether the Fed is private.

It ain’t.

Now, what about those “shares” that Fed member banks own in the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks?

Here are 14 key differences between the regional Fed bank “shares” and actual shares of REAL common stock in the REAL private world that will disabuse anyone of any doubt:

1) If you want to buy shares of any public company (makes no difference which one, I’ll call it XYZ hereafter) you may buy any amount you wish. The “shares” Fed member banks MUST buy is equal to 6% (3% in cash, 3% on-call) of their paid-in capital and retained earnings. BY STATUTE.

2) If you own shares of XYZ, you will never be required by anyone to buy more for any reason. As Fed member banks’ capital increases, they are required to purchase more Fed regional bank “shares.” BY STATUTE.

3) You buy XYZ shares through a private market like the NYSE or NASDAQ. Not from the government. Whether using a live human broker or an on-line securities account, you simply buy them. You don’t fill out an application to the Federal Reserve as prospective Fed member banks must do, BY STATUTE.

4) You buy your XYZ shares from some (unknown) individual or institution. Not from the government, as Fed member banks must, BY STATUTE.

5) When you want to sell XYZ shares you use the same private markets you used to purchase them, and do so whenever you wish. Fed member banks can only sell their “shares” back to their regional Fed bank (the government) when they cease to be a member bank. BY STATUTE.

6) You can pledge your XYZ shares as collateral on a loan at anytime you wish. No member bank can pledge or hypothecate its regional Fed bank “shares” under any circumstances, BY STATUTE.

7) An owner of XYZ shares can generally vote on all issues that are put to a shareholder vote. Regional Fed bank “shares” entitle a member bank to vote for 6 of the 9 members of its regional bank’s Board of Directors. That’s it. BY STATUTE.

8) An owner of XYZ shares generally gets one vote for each share. Member banks holding regional Fed bank “shares” get one vote, period, no matter how many “shares” they own. BY STATUTE.

9) Candidates for XYZ’s Board of Directors are nominated by XYZ or its shareholders in accordance with its by-laws, and are then voted on by shareholders. The Fed’s Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and neither Fed member banks nor their 12 elected regional bank Boards of Directors have anything whatsoever to say about it. BY STATUTE.

10) If XYZ’s Board of Directors decides that they want to change the dividend payable to shareholders they can generally do so at anytime they wish. The 6% “dividend” on Fed regional bank “shares” is set BY STATUTE.

11) If XYZ wants to amend its corporate by-laws, it can generally do so at anytime with the approval of a majority of shareholders. BY STATUTE, no regional Fed bank can amend its charter, EVER.

12) XYZ is a for-profit private enterprise, and they may generally do whatever they wish with any after-tax profits. The Fed regional banks must turn over 100% of their operating income (after their mandatory 6% “dividend”) to the US Treasury each year. BY STATUTE.

13) As time goes on, the value of XYZ shares will fluctuate, perhaps widely. The value of each member bank’s regional Fed bank “shares” is fixed at $100. BY STATUTE.

14) If XYZ is liquidated, your shares will generally entitle you to your relative proportion of assets left (if any) after all creditors of XYZ have been paid. Fed regional bank “shares” entitle member banks to exactly ZERO Fed assets under any and all circumstances. BY STATUTE.

The reality is that regional Fed bank “shares” are nothing more than a semi-permanent deposit of capital by another name.

The use of the word “share” is very narrowly technically correct as these quasi-government entities were formed as corporations which issue shares, as do all corporations.

The problem with that is that it gave rise to conspiracy theories galore propagated by people (many mentioned on this silly thread, e.g. Griffin) who know little or nothing about the Fed, banking, government, law or economics, but focus laser-like on the single word “shares.”

The Fed is not privately owned and never has been, regional Fed bank “shares” notwithstanding.

For good or ill, it’s a 100% government-controlled operation.

There’s no conspiracy, it just is what it is. If government was smarter, they never would have used the word “shares” in the enacting legislation for the Fed system and just called it “mandatory capital contributions” or something similar.

It would have avoided a lot of meaningless baloney and conspiracy garbage. Not to mention idiotic threads like this.

Ah, no, that's not how it works.

30 years ago, I owed over 500K and I paid a few hundred bucks monthly under their agreed-upon deal until their 10-year collection period expired. They were quite civil about it. They knew their lien had expired and their collection period had expired and that was that.

I'm sorry that you really don't know anything about IRS collections or procedures.

Louis Lerner should probably be in prison for what she and her underlings did to Tea Party 401(c)3 applicants, but that's a separate issue. We taxpayers got to pay 3.5 mill for her abuses.

Nonsense.

Fact: If you have no tax liability for any given year it is entirely legal not to file a return. You cannot be penalized or prosecuted for failing to file a return you were not required to file.

One might file a return for a year during which you had no taxable income because you had loss carry-forwards, or for many other reasons.

Typical FR tax and financial illiteracy. Do NOT seek tax advice on this site. Or any other.

Wrong, as usual. Trade was NOT less than 5% of GDP in 1929. GDP was then 104.6 billion. Exports were 5.9 billion. Imports were 5.6 billion.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=9

"Trade" was about 11.5 billion. That's about 11%, not "less than 5%."

In 4 years trade fell to 2 billion of exports and 1.9 billion of imports. 3.9 billion total. Down almost 70%.

As I pointed out to you here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3406938/posts

I guess you can't be bothered with any numbers which make you look like a fool.

Thanks, Smoot-Hawley for dragging the economy down much further than it would have otherwise have fallen! Good job, tariffs! Take a bow, protectionists!

Now it is $3.5 Trillion out of $17 Trillion = 21%.

Wrong again, trade is not now 3.5 trillion, that's the 70% damage that could be done to trade by your protectionist nonsense.

Trade now totals a little over 5 trillion and GDP is about 18 trillion, not 17 trillion. How do you manage to get every single number wrong? It's amazing.

What's funny is that you are now using my 3.5 trillion damage number that could be done by tariffs. Apparently you are confused. I'm not surprised.

And 5 trillion in total trade (exports plus imports) is 28% of GDP, not 21%.

So, yeah, it's a big difference. It's a much bigger and more important difference than you think. Thanks for making my point. Again.

Good question. Our newly-crowned emperor of really, really good, no, make that huge deals, no doubt in consultation with central_va and other assorted geniuses would make all of the necessary economic allocations, perfectly. After all, they know everything or can hire those Top Men who do.

They wouldn't need a mere 5-year plan, probably more like a 50-year plan.

So we could achieve "Juche," as the Norks call it, total self-reliance, an "original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought."

Or something like that. NO IMPORTS, baby! Imports are evil!

The Norks have annual GDP somewhere around 2K per capita. Nobody knows, that's just a guess, there being no published government figures. And who cares if half of them are starving and eat tree bark?

In the free-trading US, GDP per capita is about 55K. But, why stop there?

I'm sure we can drive that number down towards 2K if we exert enough protectionist effort. We, too, can eat tree bark if only we strive for Juche.

You’re a funny guy.

So far, you’ve called me a fascist, a free “traitor” and suggested that I should be “put in either insane asylums or concentration camps.”

That’s some really fine ad hominem stuff. You should be proud of your inability to argue anything effectively.

I understand that you have a problem getting out of the 1800s and with anyone who points out that your “arguments” hold no water.

Just for instance, what I actually said was that most of the jobs that have left over MANY DECADES were union, it’s got nothing to do with what’s left.

All you did was make my point. Unionization has gone from 50% or so in the late ‘40s to 6-7% today. And still declining.

Why? Their over-paid jobs are exported or automated, had to happen. What can’t go on won’t go on. Any way you slice it, the result is the same — no over-paid job. Competition won’t allow it, much as you might want central planning.

Oops, you were wrong again. Which maintains your record of being 0% correct.

Sink your teeth into this. Extorting above-market wages is not a viable business plan in the long-term.

Nonetheless, rant on, dude. As I’m sure you will. Too bad nobody with active synapses really cares what you say.

Doesn't matter. No trade the US has EVER conducted has been "free" or "equal" or "fair" -- that was always a fantasy that doesn't matter.

Who cares how "fair" it is? Nobody. People buy stuff from those durn furriners because they consider it to be to their advantage to do so under the terms at the time. Always have, always will.

Second exactly why do Trump, Clinton, and Sanders lambast [sic] free trade?

Because they are all economic illiterates and they think it sounds good to make idiotic "arguments" against trade.

The amount of economic nonsense of this and every trade thread here is astounding.

Most people here get the fact that a minimum wage (regardless of level) is a bad idea and increases unemployment. How is it that they don't also get that tariffs/protectionism is far, far worse?

That if implemented on any serious basis it would cost everyone hundreds of billions to protect a few jobs that aren't worth protecting. Huge net negative to the economy. Sorta like increasing the minimum wage, but on a much bigger scale.

Most jobs that have left -- mostly unionized low-skill, no-skill jobs -- aren't something you would want to do or want your kid to do for more than a week.

The union above-market wage extortion scheme has been imploding for 50 years. Surprise, surprise, wages have been stagnant for decades as this process works itself out.

Even with no trade at all, all of those "lost" jobs would have been automated out of existence, out of necessity.

Get over it. Our problem isn't trade, it's a useless education system and ridiculous regulations and high taxes.

If you have no skills that aren't common, you're gonna get paid accordingly, if at all. I say "if at all" because the taxes and regulations may wind up meaning the business that might have paid you could wind up being formed in some other country because of the US tax and regulatory scheme.

Oops, you're outta luck. Nothing to do with trade.

You know, you really need to get out of the 1800s.

In FY2015, total US federal tax revenue from all sources was about 3.25 trillion.

How much of that was from tariffs-duties-customs charges?

About 35 billion.

That’s about 1% of total federal revenue. A hair over. 1.08%.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist02z1.xls
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist02z5.xls

Let’s go back to 1950. 407 million in tariffs. Out of 39.4 billion total revenue.

How about that? 1.03%

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? Those 1% or so numbers are headed slowly toward zero over the next 50-100 years whether you like it or not.

Yeah, they jiggle around a little from year to year, but they’re coming down from 5% in 1940. You know, the hangover from Smoot-Hawley.

Why? Everyone in the world understands that tariffs are counter-productive and make everyone worse off. Which is why tariff percentages have been in a relentless downtrend for 80 years.

Face it. You can blather on ad infinitum and ad nauseam but we’re not going back to a tariff-based tax collection system. We’ve gotten rid of 80+% of it and we’re working on the remnants.

Not to mention that we’re not dumb enough to kill world trade with idiotic tariffs that result in every economy taking a hit, perhaps 20% in our case, contrary to what you may think.

Now, our little protectionist buddy from VA thinks the founders would have strung all of us “butt boys” up from the nearest tree.

That he misses the irony in what he says is truly comical.

What can you do with someone like that?

Seems to be the Dunning–Kruger effect at work. Maybe he’ll look it up but I doubt it’ll do any good.

Our little friend from VA is incorrigibly ignorant.

Once his “arguments” are exposed as nonsense, anyone doing so instantly becomes unpatriotic or a communist or worse.

He really should join the Bernie campaign, he being so smart and happy to pay an extra “few cents on the dollar” so that some moron can keep an overpaid union job for a while.

And, of course, he’s only too happy to require that everyone else also pay through the nose. Just because he said so. Because only he knows best.

Why, he’s so smart that he knows better than the entire US economy, if only it would listen to him and his fellow central planners. Why, just wait, he’ll come up with a 5-year plan any time now.

There’s a lot of totalitarian in every protectionist when you get right down to it.

The protectionist nitwittery on FR hasn’t ever stopped in 18 years and probably never will. They loves their stupid tariffs, even though the country was already put through their wringer over 80 years ago.

It’s actually kinda funny. Our Dear Leader Jug-ears loves the utterly failed policies of the 1930s and so do the protectionists.

You never stop with your incessant trade nonsense, do you?

I’ve already explained why your simple-minded garbage about tariffs is ridiculous nonsense.

Smoot-Hawley managed to reduce trade by about 70% in the early ‘30s. Today, with just shy of an 18 trillion GDP, do you want to whack international trade by 70%?

That would be about 1.9 trillion in US imports, over 10% of GDP.

It would happen quickly. Impose a 35% tariff on Chinese goods. Followed by immediate retaliation by the Chinese.

Followed by more US tariffs on everyone who rushed to fill the Chinese void. Followed by more retaliation by all of those countries. And back and forth and so on and so forth and on and on until someone finally came to their senses many years later. It’s called a trade war.

Which would take down another 1.6 trillion of exports.

Total damage to the economy in short order? 3.5 trillion.

20% of the entire economy.

Never mind the add-on effects of knocking 20% of the economy on its butt. Never mind the shortages and rapidly increasing prices costing people hundreds and hundreds of billions and the depression it would trigger.

For what? So that a handful of people in industries which no longer exist in the US could have jobs that you pine for at some distant future point that pay spit?

You really have no economic clue at all. Go read some Ricardo on comparative advantage and get back to us when you have a better grasp of things.

I won’t hold my breath.

This article is a hot, steaming pile of crap.

Income taxes aren’t a fraud or a deception on anyone, they’re just a bad way to raise revenue. A consumption tax being the obvious alternative.

How about that? We could throw out about 70,000 pages of regulatory details and rules and nobody would have any reason to lobby for this or that special treatment in the future.

Not to mention that we could get rid of maybe 90-95,000 of our 100,000 IRS employees.

A tax that encourages investment. No special treatment possible. I’ll vote for that and anyone who supports it every single time.

What do we manufacture in the U.S. anymore?

Lots of stuff, just not the junk that's in Walmart from China or wherever that everyone talks about. Somebody else can make the easy, low-tech/no-tech cheap stuff.

Most of the stuff we make and export is stuff nobody is familiar with or sees on a shelf in a store. Mostly high-tech, high cost capital goods, not cheap consumer junk anyone can make.

Airplanes. Heavy equipment. Computer-controlled equipment of all types. Other highly sophisticated, high-tech manufacturing stuff. Etc., etc. None of it is on a shelf at Walmart.

Total, about 4 trillion of goods in 2015. Plus, we exported about 1.5 trillion of goods. Total about 5.5 trillion. About 31% of GDP.

By way of comparison, in 1980 goods were about 36% of GDP.

So, there's been a very slight, very slow decline on a percentage basis over the last 35 years. Not a big deal. .17% of GDP per year. Despite that slight drag, the total value of manufacturing in the US continues to set records.

BEA
Table 1.1.5

Kinda like 200 years ago when 98% of employment was in farming. Now, farming is maybe 1% of total employment, yet our farms produce 1000 times as much and we're the world's largest agricultural exporter.

Where have all our manufacturing jobs gone?

To the extent that there has been a loss of jobs, unions can take most of the credit. Extorting above-market wages has been going on for about 70 years and it doesn't work.

Slowly but surely some over-paid manufacturing jobs have left, permanently. Textiles, shoes, toys, etc., etc.

50 years ago there was still a lot of low-skill manufacturing going on. Tab A in slot B is a job anyone can do with no skill, so it's going to go elsewhere over time, even without a union accelerating it.

Why can't we be competitive?

We're competitive in many industries, we dominate many, but in some we're not because: 1) Unions. 2) Regulations.

Why are our costs so high?

Same deal. Throw in a lack of being able to compete internationally due to our stupid system of corporate taxation.

Is government the solution or the problem?

Nothing the government does ever makes US business more competitive.

Government enabled unions and we still suffer the ill-effects.

Government constantly enacts new regulations and we suffer the ever-increasing ill-effects.

Government runs the "education" system which throws out increasing numbers of unemployable illiterates.

No surprise that any business that possibly can will use robotics and technology to replace them or avoid having to hire them at all.

I’ll bet you do file “several” tax forms with the IRS annually.

Let’s see. Start with a false 1040.

To that, add one or more false “corrected” 1099s. Problem is that the only entity capable of filing a corrected 1099 is the original filer. That ain’t you. That’s whoever paid you the money you don’t want to report. So, instead, you make stuff up. Bad idea.

And, then, how about some false 4852s? Nothing like admitting guilt by taking a specific action to carry out your tax evasion by trying to zero-out your reported W-2 amounts by “correcting” them to zero, eh?

Sounds like a trifecta of false filings. 3 years in the pen plus 250K each, max. You’ll probably get 2-3 years or so, total. Go for it.

BTW, WorldNutDaily is full of it, as usual. The DH case has no implications for free speech or anything else. It only has implications for the idiotic DH. The guy who wrote that sorry excuse for an “article” is an idiot, not unlike you.

The judge ordered DH to file accurate returns. She refused. She was indicted, tried and convicted by a jury and sentenced for criminal contempt of court. It’s that simple.

Unless you believe in TP magic words that never, ever work.

BTW, I recommend that you read judge Buch’s take-down of PH and CtC and CtC “educated” returns.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/WaltnerMemo.Buch.TCM.WPD.pdf

Most federal judges, whether District or Circuit or Tax Court don’t bother with details when they’re faced with total nonsense. They usually just quote Crain v. Commissioner:

“We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”

Judge Buch actually took the time.

Pretty amazing. Shocking, actually. Most of them can’t be bothered by nitwits and other purveyors of total junk and really, really stupid nonsense.

Buch wrote a comprehensive, detailed opinion, which he certainly didn’t have to do. It was a slap-down of another of PH’s idiot adherents, namely Steven Waltner.

Needless to say, Waltner lost. They all do. And he was sanctioned $2,500 by Buch for delaying and wasting the court’s time. Waltner was lucky, the sanction could have been up to 25K.

Buch takes PH’s useless book apart, chapter by chapter. Cover to cover. It’s a classic delineation of the fact that what you seem to think is the “truth” is utter and total rubbish and nonsense. And why it loses every single time.

Read and be warned. The only reason you haven’t been called to account for your self-admitted tax evasion is that the IRS is incompetent.

Slow to figure things out. Stupid, as in believing rubbish people like you spout. Anyone at the IRS who bought your BS was obviously a low-level employee, not someone who knew what they were doing. Close enough for government work, right?

Works for a while. But, even the idiotic government figures things out eventually. Took them years to catch on to PH and all the rest of them.

If you ever receive any IRS correspondence from Ogden, UT, you’ll know that you’re now on the TP griddle. Ogden is where they send all of the returns they think might be from evaders/TPs. You know, as in fraudulent. They have an entire office devoted to pursuing people like Schiff, PH and their followers. Like you.

Once you’re on that radar, you’re screwed. There’s no longer any question that you’ll be sued for amounts due if you don’t pay upon demand, the question becomes whether your case merits referral to the Criminal Investigation Division. Oops.

I really don’t care if you want to expose yourself to civil suit and/or criminal indictment as you play your stupid little TP tax evasion games. You might get away with it for another 10 years.

Then again, you might not.

The IRS doesn’t like morons squawking about getting away with evading taxes. And this is a public forum. IRS and DoJ people read forums like this looking for idiots who brag about their tax evasion.

Probably not a good thing to do, huh?