Where in The U.S. Are You Most Likely to Be Audited by the IRS?

By artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 1:51pm |

You know the system is rigged when the IRS targets working Americans while dedicating fewer and fewer resources to holding the ultra-wealthy taxpayers accountable. https://t.co/5rhn0n8WCJ
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 3, 2019

URL:

https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit

7197 reads

Comments

This is one of the "system broken" things that helped Trump win. I am seeing it everywhere now,

after reading what Mayor Peter said here:

Well, you know, you said this very recently, to the Washington Post, I believe it was: Donald Trump got elected because, in his twisted way, he pointed out the huge troubles in our economy and in our democracy. At least he didn’t go around saying that America was already great, like Hillary did. Now, I know you’ve backtracked a little bit about that latter bit, but you’re saying something pretty large there. What is it?

Yeah, so, I know that that quotation got circulated a lot. It’s something I said last year and I think appeared in the profile in January, and it got circulated, unfortunately, a little bit without context. But the point I’m making here is that a Presidency like this doesn’t just happen. A figure like Donald Trump doesn’t just become possible unless there’s a real sense of brokenness in our political and economic system that makes it possible, not only for racist and xenophobic appeals to get more traction but also for a lot of people who have been historically Democratic to vote a different way, almost as a vote to burn the house down. And, you know, you saw a lot of people—people aligned with labor, people who had been in the habit of voting Democratic—who were really angry at the system, or what they perceived the system to be, both economically and politically. And so, even though pretty much everything the President said wasn’t true, when he said, for example, you know, that elections were rigged, in the sense of, you know, busloads of immigrants coming to vote, obviously, that was false, but it’s not false that elections are rigged, in the sense that the districts are drawn to where most of their outcomes are decided in advance and politicians choose their voters, rather than the other way around. You know, when he said the economy was rigged, obviously, I think it’s clear to many of us that he’s among the class of people that helped to rig it. But there was also some truth to that. And so, to the extent that we, the Democratic Party, in 2016, were perceived as saying that the system was fine—so he was saying, I’m going to blow up the system, and we were saying, Trust the system. A lot of people, especially people in industrial Midwestern communities like mine, didn’t find our message to be convincing because the system really had let them down, in the sense that, you know, the rising tide rose, just as we were promised it would, but most of our boats didn’t budge.

and what this Max Fisher/New York Times piece said on the same globally.

Liz Warren knows these populist memes inside and out, her problem is only that her personality and background comes across as elite. She actually has been working on this "our system is broken" meme for decades. And furthermore, she has never made a big deal about the partisan thing, she just goes after the class thing.

But I am convinced now, especially after reading umpteen articles about Obama/Trump voters that this is the thing, this is what helped win it for Trump, and why someone like Ocasio-Cortez won against a long time Dem incumbent, why Bernie's Independent status resounds with many and how Dems can lose again: don't present as if your party's status quo is the answer and everything will be hunky dory. It wasn't the answer for many as the Obama years went on, there were many unhappy people. There are too many that are not happy with the Dems nor the Republicans, nor are they happy with Labour nor the Tories in the UK. Candidates have to admit the system is broken, not laud their party status quo as an answer.

by artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 2:39pm

And for those of us who wanted Hillary, who knew Obama would compromise too much and it would go largely nowhere, and then 8 years later get this "well you had your Obama-Clinton government, time to try something different" - and *then* hear Joe fucking Biden offered as one of the new untried but experienced solutions... it all gets a bit rich. And yeah, her opponent Bernie never had to release his taxes, never had to make any of his proposals balance out even close financially...

I wrote about Poroshenko vs Zelenskiiy - that I'm worried this independent fever just favors people who never had to thread the needle, make bargains with the countless devils. It's easy to look clean as a spectator or side show. And now I feel we've inherited a boatload of side shows and not too many main attractions. That Pete or Beto or Stacey or who else can seem possible because we simply have no hard minimum requirements for a president aside from over 35. Maybe we need a parliament so we can roll thru PMs and give them all a try.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 3:01pm

I actually think Abrams and Gollum are putting in the work to qualify for a future run. Beto seems to think he won his race.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 3:08pm

I now see that Hillary's only problem in this zeitgeist was being part of the directly previous administration, the status quo. And that even some who had voted for Obama second time around had had enough of status quo.

We here all know that they were stymied by the GOP, you can rag on it forever and the unfair smearing too. That's not enough, though, for low info. voters when they are fed up. It's a long time problem, the way it's looked at is basically re-electing an admin. that's been in two terms already. Voters in swing districts better be super pleased with what's been going on for 8 years, or they will vote for the new guy, especially if the new guy talks independent or bi-partisan.

Edit to add: traditionally, once removed a term or more, nostalgia for the old status quo can work. But not right following. And it should be said she did great with that handicap, got a popular majority. It's the electoral college swings where things fell apart.

by artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 3:45pm

It's the millions (esp blacks) taken off voting rolls, the too few voting booths in Dem precincts, restrictions on students/campuses, the flood of propaganda by Cambridge Analytica and Psy-Group using stolen voter demographic data and targeted accounts, the partially forced error of the FBI head by Giuliani's pals somewhere in the FBI, the stolen emails by Russian hackers as dripped out by Roger Stone and Wikileaks, and some bad vote rigging activity in Wisconsin, PA & Michigan that we still don't quite understand (% discards in known Dem districts?) since there was no audit, but we know it was only a 90,000 vote diff of 13.5 million and Trump's handlers sent him to these states at the last minute to cover up their rigging (not some genius intuition he had)

Once we acknowledge this illegal and/or unethical activity that likely took away at least 2 million more votes (switched or abstained) and enough electoral votes to win, we can diagnose the flaws in Hillary's campaign and the plight of white working class in flyover country, as well as the poor job (or biased job) the media does in communicating news, such as Trump's crooked business dealins or the Clinton Foundation or last week the Barr "report"/summary-non-summary, with the Fox/Sinclair propaganda chain a legal but immoral state of affaors that feeds many low info voters effectively.

Now, even Obama didn't step in to fix some of these legal and structural problems, and they aure haven't been fixed under Trump, plus of course the electoral college bias against dense states towards rural states gives the GOP another advantage to take into account. This bias wasn't so fixed before the Fox/Sinclair full-press began, but we have to figure a way around it now.

We've seen recent GOP malfeasance w voting machines in FL and GA, we've seen Saudis hack Bezos' phone using Israeli software, we know a number of Republicans were visiting voting machinc conventions paid by companies, we know how rump and the OP funnel illegal money around, how many unethical things the GOP have bonded together to do - it will happen again, except for any strength shown by the House.

So how's our incoming field look? Who can handle these structural issues and eke out a win?

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 4:21pm

It's the millions (esp blacks) taken off voting rolls,

I'm sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me. Those voters are mostly in districts that won't make a big difference in national races; compared to effect of inflammatory issues and trolling it's a nothing burger. Can be a big deal as to state and local, but not national.

As for the other stuff, one way or another, for national elections, you have to deal with swings until current gerrymandering and electoral college is gone.

In the end, on the Russian thing, they were simply ahead of the curve. Manipulation of low info voter is now a tool available to everyone and the ones that can troll the best and manipulate emotions the best and brand or slander the best, and microtarget such things capably, etc. Tribalism is a big problem! People read their preferred tribe's messaging.

Edit to add: In no way want to minimize disenfranchisement, it's a serious issue. I just don't think it's that much of an effect on national. You can just as well argue, for instance, that Milwaukee blacks staying home because "a pox on both their houses" did as much damage to Hillary. The effect is micro numbers in the national scheme of things There's always gonna be some little group somewhere that could have saved ya.... just go back to Florida and Gore vs. Bush and hanging chads...ridiculous, should never have happened, to argue it was Nader's fault or whatever is ridiculous, you should have a safe margin to cover those things or you failed.

by artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 4:42pm

People who tried to vote in Wisconsin were stymied by voter suppression. Many were enthusiastic about voting.

You can’t say Andrea Anthony didn’t try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. “Voting is important to me because I know I have a little, teeny, tiny voice, but that is a way for it to be heard,” she said. “Even though it’s one vote, I feel it needs to count

She’d lost her driver’s license a few days earlier, but she came prepared with an expired Wisconsin state ID and proof of residency. A poll worker confirmed she was registered to vote at her current address. But this was Wisconsin’s first major election that required voters—even those who were already registered—to present a current driver’s license, passport, or state or military ID to cast a ballot. Anthony couldn’t, and so she wasn’t able to vote.

The poll worker gave her a provisional ballot instead. It would be counted only if she went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a new ID and then to the city clerk’s office to confirm her vote, all within 72 hours of Election Day. But Anthony couldn’t take time off from her job as an administrative assistant at a housing management company, and she had five kids and two grandkids to look after. For the first time in her life, her vote wasn’t counted.

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in the three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent. If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016,” the study said. These “lost voters”—those who voted in 2012 and 2014 but not 2016—”skewed more African American and more Democrat” than the overall voting population. Some academics criticized the study’s methodology, but its conclusions were consistent with a report from the Government Accountability Office, which found that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee had decreased turnout by roughly 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among black, young, and new voters.

According to a comprehensive study by MIT political scientist Charles Stewart, an estimated 16 million people—12 percent of all voters—encountered at least one problem voting in 2016. There were more than 1 million lost votes, Stewart estimates, because people ran into things like ID laws, long lines at the polls, and difficulty registering. Trump won the election by a total of 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, the intent of those who pushed for the ID law was clear. On the night of Wisconsin’s 2016 primary, GOP Rep. Glenn Grothman, a backer of the law when he was in the state Senate, predicted that a Republican would carry the state in November, even though Wisconsin had gone for Barack Obama by 7 points in 2012. “I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up,” he told a local TV news reporter, “and now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 5:11pm

Thanks.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 6:31pm

Ahead of the curve, but horridly in violation of federal campaign laws, including accepting foreign things or services of value as well as coordination between general funds and presidential campaigns. Not to mention the conspiracy to defraud the American people which is sitting in Mueller's indictments, and any American assistance of this effort is a felony - think that might be in the 400-700 page report or the millions of pages of evidence?

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 6:35pm

You are going off topic, mho. If they interfere this time, they will no doubt do something totally different.

Edit to add: Furthermore, I've never been convinced that they made much difference as to the actual election of Trump. (If they did, how come he still has the same approval rating?) Where they made a major difference is in amping up the divisiveness and tribalism in our society at exactly a time when it would do more harm than usual.

Keep in mind, if he lost he would still be out there, wasn't going away. Yelling "lock er up".

by artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 7:34pm

Look Oct. 1, 2018: Russia gives up on Trump; that's over, history.

by artappraiser on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 7:37pm

Ha! Change in voter sentiment since 2016:

Florida (-24% net approval)
Ohio (-20%)
Michigan (-19%)
Wisconsin (-18%)
Pennsylvania (-17%)

Considering Hillary lost the last 3 by a total of 90,000 votes,
113,000 in Florida - did she run a bad campaign, or did it just
take these slow states 2 1/2 years to come to Jesus?

Can we have all those reporters revisit the "heartland"
and give us an update on what's changed, how white people feel now?

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/05/2019 - 12:34pm

Excellent news, not to mention bias confirmation for moi. Where'd you get it?

by artappraiser on Fri, 04/05/2019 - 3:02pm

Where in The U.S. Are You Most Likely to Be Audited by the IRS?

Comments

Sections

Bloggers