Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit surprised to find someone suggesting that selling prescription pills under the counter shouldn't be illegal. Do you mind elaborating on your perspective?

If there's a willing buyer, and a willing seller, and the goods aren't stolen, and the seller isn't lying about what the goods are, then who is the victim? If there's no victim, there's no crime. (And, yes, identical logic does apply equally to illegal drugs).

Oh okay I understand that perspective. Thanks.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At ~current funding levels, the IRS brings in ~$3 for every $1 spent on it. The federal government could bring in more tax dollars just by funding the IRS at a higher level; it doesn't, for reasons.

> At ~current funding levels, the IRS brings in ~$3 for every $1 spent on it. The federal government could bring in more tax dollars just by funding the IRS at a higher level; it doesn't, for reasons. Here are some of those reasons. $3 for every $1 is an extremely misleading way of putting it, as though the IRS is a business and everything is good as long as it's turning a profit. A better way of putting it is that c…

We could easily solve the small buisiness problem by making the audit process happen at the government’s expense and probably still make money. We don’t have the government just tell you what you owe (like many other nations) because of the tax prep industry lobbyist and people vested on existing loopholes.

I don’t believe the driving force is protecting small buisinesses from Audits- anecdotal, but small businesses in my family are still audited frequently. I believe it has to do with how unpopular the IRS is with the conservatives for ideological reasons, and they currently control the government. Our president bragged about how dodging taxes was an admirable quality- that kind of attitude is the driving force in american rhetoric, not protecting small buisiness owners.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#23
post #3
post #2

What's needed is to make cracking down on white-collar crime profitable. Like the setup for drug task forces.

Isn't it already? Possibly even more so than drug task forces? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/your-money/vanguard-a-cha...

Maybe I lack relevant local knowledge (I am not a US citizen) but seems like this describes a situation where a government agency had discretion to perhaps do something legal but immoral back in 2016. Did they, in fact? That is, did the IRS tell Vanguard it owes a large new tax bill on a "transfer pricing" rationale?

The UK's GAAR has this trick called a "double reasonableness test" which it uses to get rid of some types of tax _avoidance_ and that seems like an appropriate legal rule here if, in fact, the IRS does abuse this discretion.

The double reasonableness test asks this:

Could any reasonable person (not you, the jury member, judge or whatever, but some other reasonable person you're capable of imagining) think that this way of doing things was reasonable ?

Only if the answer is "No", which it will be only for the most extraordinarily tortured ways of avoiding tax, then this method of avoiding tax is prohibited. You don't go to jail or anything, your avoidance trick just doesn't work and you owe the taxes as usual.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#24
post #15

You'd have to completely reframe the penalty for crimes to be percentage based instead of fixed amounts. Even when caught the penalties are often so low that they don't matter, so white collar criminals go right back to it. When you can routinely make $10 million doing something a $1 million fine the one time you get caught just isn't a big deal. The cost-benefit analysis almost always favors the criminal for white c…

What is an actual example where you can make more money committing a crime than you would be forced to pay back if you are caught and convicted? I don't think your assertion is true.

Maybe if you have money you get caught but not convicted? Thinking about banks laundering money for drug cartels

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#25
post #15

You'd have to completely reframe the penalty for crimes to be percentage based instead of fixed amounts. Even when caught the penalties are often so low that they don't matter, so white collar criminals go right back to it. When you can routinely make $10 million doing something a $1 million fine the one time you get caught just isn't a big deal. The cost-benefit analysis almost always favors the criminal for white c…

What is an actual example where you can make more money committing a crime than you would be forced to pay back if you are caught and convicted? I don't think your assertion is true.

It's not about criminal convictions. In theory it's just a civil case with a criminal case to follow. Which is why SEC fines are often less than the net befit. But, the actual number of criminal cases is rather low.

EX: "In June 2009, the SEC sued Angelo Mozilo, former CEO of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, and two other former officers, charging that they misled investors about the quality of Countrywide's loans while knowing the company was fueling its growth by letting its underwriting guidelines deteriorate and originating a growing number of risky subprime loans. In October 2010, the SEC settled the lawsuit and Mozilo was required to pay a fraction of the $521.5 million he had earned, just $67.5 million in penalties" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_SEC_enforcement_...

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#26
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an actual example where you can make more money committing a crime than you would be forced to pay back if you are caught and convicted? I don't think your assertion is true.

It's not about criminal convictions. In theory it's just a civil case with a criminal case to follow. Which is why SEC fines are often less than the net befit. But, the actual number of criminal cases is rather low. EX: "In June 2009, the SEC sued Angelo Mozilo, former CEO of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, and two other former officers, charging that they misled investors about the quality of Countrywide's lo…

[deleted]

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#27
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an actual example where you can make more money committing a crime than you would be forced to pay back if you are caught and convicted? I don't think your assertion is true.

It's not about criminal convictions. In theory it's just a civil case with a criminal case to follow. Which is why SEC fines are often less than the net befit. But, the actual number of criminal cases is rather low. EX: "In June 2009, the SEC sued Angelo Mozilo, former CEO of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, and two other former officers, charging that they misled investors about the quality of Countrywide's lo…

It's not at all clear that all of Mozilo's earnings came from fraudulent activity. In fact, it's almost certainly true that this is not the case.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At ~current funding levels, the IRS brings in ~$3 for every $1 spent on it. The federal government could bring in more tax dollars just by funding the IRS at a higher level; it doesn't, for reasons.

Well, the US government is literally run by tax dodgers right now, whether or not you think that is a good thing.

A lot of which is legal "dodging", which is another large problem. There are more loopholes in the tax laws than there are actual tax laws. You have to have money and assets to be able to utilize a lot of them, though. The average Joe wouldn't be able to.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At ~current funding levels, the IRS brings in ~$3 for every $1 spent on it. The federal government could bring in more tax dollars just by funding the IRS at a higher level; it doesn't, for reasons. Here are some of those reasons. $3 for every $1 is an extremely misleading way of putting it, as though the IRS is a business and everything is good as long as it's turning a profit. A better way of putting it is that c…

We could easily solve the small buisiness problem by making the audit process happen at the government’s expense and probably still make money. We don’t have the government just tell you what you owe (like many other nations) because of the tax prep industry lobbyist and people vested on existing loopholes. I don’t believe the driving force is protecting small buisinesses from Audits- anecdotal, but small businesses…

I completely support the idea of the IRS sending individuals a default tax return which you can just use as-is if you don't have anything to dispute or amend and be done.

But that doesn't work for small businesses. If you sell hamburgers, the majority of your customers won't have informed the IRS of the transaction. If any part of your supply chain includes normal retail outlets, same thing. Small business tax returns are pretty horrific. (They're at least as complicated for large businesses too, but they actually like it that way for all the usual reasons.)

> I don’t believe the driving force is protecting small buisinesses from Audits- anecdotal, but small businesses in my family are still audited frequently.

And they typically don't uncover major tax fraud, right? Evidence that the existing level of enforcement is, if anything, too high.

> I believe it has to do with how unpopular the IRS is with the conservatives for ideological reasons

That doesn't make any sense. Both of the major parties are ideologically bankrupt and ruthlessly pragmatic. Some part of their constituency wants it this way -- and it's probably the small business owners who keep getting audited even though they're not evading taxes.

> Our president bragged about how dodging taxes was an admirable quality- that kind of attitude is the driving force in american rhetoric, not protecting small buisiness owners.

Not paying taxes you don't actually owe is textbook capitalism. The idea that we should be outraged at companies for not paying what the law we passed says they don't owe instead of replacing the tax laws with ones that cause them to actually owe taxes is some kind of nonsense populist rhetoric.

Re: The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit surprised to find someone suggesting that selling prescription pills under the counter shouldn't be illegal. Do you mind elaborating on your perspective?

If there's a willing buyer, and a willing seller, and the goods aren't stolen, and the seller isn't lying about what the goods are, then who is the victim? If there's no victim, there's no crime. (And, yes, identical logic does apply equally to illegal drugs).

And assuming insurance didn't pay for the pills (this would fall under the category of "stolen" or at least "misappropriated")
Post reply on HN