![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
And who's bright idea was that?
Reference:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?ex=1154404800&en=882e147ffb6ed922&ei=5070&emc=eta1
So the IRS is cutting half of the tax lawyers who audit the wealthy. Good idea? I don't think so.
I'll admit that not being one of the wealthy, I do perhaps have a opinion colored by perspective and jealousy, but setting that aside, does it make sense to you to have a policy that clearly has the support of at least a simple majority of the population, and then go out of your way to make it impossible to police simply as a way of disregarding it? It strikes me that those most likely to be impacted and therefore the most likely to object are also those with the political currency (let's face it, in a capitalist society [which I don't inherently object to], economic currency _is_ political currency) to find ways to mitigate any possible impact.
Something in this screams conflict of interest, of the sort that got Abramoff in trouble...
So the IRS is cutting half of the tax lawyers who audit the wealthy. Good idea? I don't think so.
I'll admit that not being one of the wealthy, I do perhaps have a opinion colored by perspective and jealousy, but setting that aside, does it make sense to you to have a policy that clearly has the support of at least a simple majority of the population, and then go out of your way to make it impossible to police simply as a way of disregarding it? It strikes me that those most likely to be impacted and therefore the most likely to object are also those with the political currency (let's face it, in a capitalist society [which I don't inherently object to], economic currency _is_ political currency) to find ways to mitigate any possible impact.
Something in this screams conflict of interest, of the sort that got Abramoff in trouble...