Fraud investigators should focus their attention on wealthy conservatives

One never knows for sure when Pro is proposing a topic for serious debate, and when he is just kidding. I'm not sure that even Pro knows. That's the scary part. In any case, I'll take this as being a serious topic. There are four reasons why the resolution should be soundly rejected: 1. Harassing political opponents on the grounds of their political beliefs is unfair, undemocratic, and inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law. 2. The policy will reduce tax compliance dramatically, diminishing revenues, because non-conservatives will know they aren't going to be audited. 3. Both rich liberals and rich conservatives can avoid taxes legally, because they can afford accountants and lawyers to advise them how. 4. It will encourage left-wing weasels who prosper by gaming the system to make tax laws that further punish productive people. 1. Currently the Internal Revenue Service, and I assume Customs and Revenue, selects cases for investigation by (a) using computer programs that impartially flag suspicious returns for investigation http://www.walletpop.com..., (b) relying upon tips from whistle-blowers about persons evading tax law, and (c) randomly selecting some number of taxpayers for revue. Pro resolves that this should be abandoned in favor of harassing opponents of ever-higher taxation. He says, "Since the resources of tax authorities ... are limited, they should target their tax evasion investigations on those most likely to offend by proactively probing the financial affairs of known supporters of right-wing political parties." "Harass" means "to trouble, torment, or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... -- precisely what Pro resolves. "Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality." http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro wants a thumb on the left side of the scale. 2. Pro offers no evidence that known supporters of right-wing political parties are more likely to cheat on taxes than anyone else, and certainly no evidence that they are more likely to cheat than the names produced by computer analysis and whistle-blowers. Eliminating random selection for revue guarantees the average taxpayer will not be reviewed, so they may comfortably cheat as much as the want. Whistle-blowers will be ignored in favor of harassment. 3. Very few rich people cheat on taxes. There is no need for them to do so, because there are so many perfectly legal ways to evade taxes. http://www.rpifs.com... is no reason to cheat and risk going to jail when perfectly legal methods are available to accomplish the goal of not paying taxes. In American, the primary financial support for the Democrats is from wealthy trial lawyers, entertainment industry executives, and labor unions. Trial lawyers and entertainment executives have all the knowledge needed to evade taxes, and labor unions are tax exempt. There was a threat of taxing the so-called "Cadillac" health care benefits of union members, but Obama cut them a special exemption. The Left gets enormous contributions from "limousine liberals" like billionaire George Soros. Soros is in many ways typical of leftists who advocate high taxes for others, but successfully evade the taxes themselves. Soros funds moveon.org, MediaMatters, and a host of other radical Leftist organizations. http://www.foxnews.com... Soros operates from the tax haven of Curacao, repeatedly cited by the Task Force on Money Laundering of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as one of the world's most important centers for laundering illegal proceeds of the Latin American cocaine and other drug traffic. http://www.oecd.org... This is not to say that Soros is involved in drug trafficking, only that he has selected the most extreme of the tax havens. It's not necessary to go to extreme of moving off shore to avoid taxes. Al Gore, for example, has made about a Billion dollars since leaving office, using perfectly legal means to avoid taxes. Large Wall Street firms gave more support to Obama in the last election than to McCain, and the large firms have supported the wildly complex 2000 page "financial reform" bill recently enacted. Large Wall Street firms and major corporations pack the list of top Obama contributors. http://www.opensecrets.org... There is a common theme to all of the rich liberal support ranging from trial lawyers to unions to large Wall Street firms. They are all experts at gaming the system. They quite naturally love a complex tax system, because they feel confident in gaming it successfully. They are eager to increase taxes so long as the tax system is made ever more complex, so smaller and less sophisticated taxpayers cannot cope with it. It particular, they want to tax the whiz out of people who actually produce useful things. Leftists are confident they will continue to game the system so that they won't have to actually pay the taxes, while others who are concerned with doing productive things like manufacturing (the primary Republican source of money) will have to pay instead. Pro cites the inheritance tax to support his case against conservatives. Inheritance taxes are evaded by setting up trusts that shield the inheritance from inheritance taxes. People like trial lawyers and financial executives know how to pull this off without a hitch. Consequently, the main impact is on family businesses like small companies and farms. Their wealth is tied up in the assets of the business, like the land that is being farmed. A high inheritance tax requires that the business be liquidated in order to pay the taxes. A farmer describes how this works: "My dad bought this place for somewhere around $700,000 about ten years ago. If he were to leave this land to me, the current value is somewhere around $3 million. ... It shouldn't be worth this much and it isn't based on its ability to produce income. But it is due to its recreational value and perhaps as investment property. Despite that fact, the government will tax me according to present market value. ... When all is said and done, this land I am told is worth $3 million pays me a salary of $30,000 a year. At best. And that is it. So, if I get an exemption of $1 million and owe 55% on the balance, I will owe $1.1 million dollars in inheritance taxes should my dad decide to leave this place to me. Takes a while at $30,000 a year gross to save a million bucks." http://agonist.org... That pleases Leftists, who envision cheerful peasants toiling on vast collectives. It is consistent with the theme of punishing success achieved by productivity and rewarding success achieved by gaming the system. 4. Why did Pro think he needed so many references to the obvious point that conservatives dislike high taxes and big government? Yup. Pro's references mentioned that conservatives support tax simplification. Simplification makes evasion much more difficult. Conservative widely support the flat tax, which eliminates many of the tricky means of tax avoidance that leftists enjoy. "What conservatives most want is an uncomplicated system that taxes income only once (when it is earned) at one low rate." http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org... "We want to scrap our confusing, unfair tax code and replace it with a simple flat tax of one low rate with no deductions or special interest loopholes." http://www.freedomworks.org... Pro resolves that scheming weasels should rule. The resolution is negated.