They're not *that* expensive. Right now, you can buy an 15.4 TB Solidigm TLC datacenter SSD for $1220 from an official reseller. It's more expensive per TB than consumer trash, but nothing a mere millionaire couldn't easily afford. So, I'd guess Kioxia needs to sell this for around $2500, for it to be competitive.
If you compare it to high-end gaming graphics cards, it doesn't even look *that* expensive. Not to mention proper workstation CPUs and motherboards.
But the debt ceiling deal eliminated the budget to hire IRS auditors. So, you're free to commit tax evasion with virtually no worries of getting caught. It's a perfect racket, until the country goes bankrupt. After that, I'd suggest you ask Greece how much they've enjoyed letting their wealthy citizens get away with tax evasion for so long.
I was trying to be funny above, but it seems this is turning serious, so I will too.
All parties in the US depend on the wealthy to fund their campaigns. Saying that one or more parties would be interested in stopping tax fraud of the rich donors would be the equivalent of shooting their party in the foot. Second, tax laws, like other laws, are often influenced by the legislators concern of how said laws will affect their wealthy donors. So saying that "the rich" will no longer evade taxes is effectively saying that we'll all get taxed more and the wealthy donors will go from cheating to effectively rewriting the rules to further skew the laws in their favor. Third, even if you get all the tax reforms you want passed, those rich donors will just leave the country for somewhere that doesn't tax them as much.
The ideal solution to this problem is to completely avoid the incentive to cheat and to evade taxation which would mean a complete overhaul of the egregious over spending system that we utilize to this day. Having done so, most of the donors would decide to favor the improved spending goals, switch to paying a more fair share of the taxes, and the those wealthy donors who don't agree would be a much smaller group and could be much more easily prosecuted.
> Saying that one or more parties would be interested in stopping tax fraud > of the rich donors would be the equivalent of shooting their party in the foot.
One party put IRS funding in the infrastructure bill. Then, the other party got a congressional majority and threatened to force the US government to default on its financial obligations, unless they won concessions which included a rollback of the IRS funding increase. That's a fact.
> tax loopholes
Yes. But, it's not enough that they have their loopholes. They also don't even want anyone checking that they paid what they still owed.
> those rich donors will just leave the country
They already hide much of their wealth in tax havens. There are practical limits on their ability to relocate and not be subject to US tax code.
> The ideal solution
"perfect is the enemy of good". At minimum, I just want enforcement so they pay what they owe, under the current system. Once you have enforcement, then reforms become meaningful. Without enforcement, it doesn't really matter what else you do.
> avoid the incentive to cheat
As long as taxes are owed, there will always be an incentive to cheat.
> most of the donors would decide to favor the improved spending goals, > switch to paying a more fair share of the taxes
LOL, no. Most people evading or avoiding taxes do not believe in paying their fair share of anything.
> One party put IRS funding in the infrastructure bill. Yes, but as I pointed out above, if the funding were used for going after the rich donors, then said party would receive less funding because the donors don't want to be taxed more and would have less money to give said party.
Haven't you noticed yet that it's illegal in the US to lie to congress, but politicians can lie to us at will? That's what this is. It's the normal political "promise them one thing, deliver another" type system.
> LOL, no. Most people evading or avoiding taxes do not believe in paying their fair share of anything. And the last thing they'd want to do is to funnel money into a spending system that's never satisfied. Hence my reasoning that a budget that results in a surplus, however small, would encourage them to pay their fair share.
> Yes, but as I pointed out above, if the funding were used for going after the rich donors
Yes. A large part of the money was to fund auditors. Right row, the IRS doesn't go after wealthy individuals, because they can afford to hire lawyers and make it difficult and expensive for the resource-strapped IRS. Because of this, most of those currently audited are actually low-income individuals. The new funding was set to address this imbalance.
Sometime, you should try actually reading about a subject, before making pronouncements on it.
> Haven't you noticed yet that it's illegal in the US to lie to congress, but politicians can lie to us at will?
In a Congressional proceeding, you're under oath. Any time a member of Congress would be under oath, they would commit perjury upon lying. If you're not under oath, then speech is protected by the 1st Amendment (unless libelous, incitement to violence, etc.). That's how it should be. It's not good if they lie, but then who would enforce it (i.e. decide what's a lie and whether they knew it was a lie)? Criminalizing speech would be an easy way for the party in power to lock up its political opponents.
> the last thing they'd want to do is to funnel money into a spending system that's never satisfied.
People engaged in tax avoidance or tax evasion will always find some excuse or reason to be dissatisfied. They have plenty of loopholes and fancy accountants to lessen their burden, plus the same rights and ability to influence the political process as the rest of us. If, after all that, they're still dissatisfied, too bad. Laws need to be enforced. A country needs to be able to collect taxes to avoid becoming insolvent.
> Hence my reasoning that a budget that results in a surplus
Wishful thinking is dangerous. Sometime, try testing your assumptions by trying (really hard) to disprove them. Otherwise, you're probably living in a fantasy land and you'll never know it.
> Yes. A large part of the money was to fund auditors. ... > Sometime, you should try actually reading about a subject, before making pronouncements on it.
I've read 3 articles on the subject, one of which was very extensive. My "pronouncements", are based on how politicians and bureaucrats operate, not the current narrative of nation changing reform we are lead into by such articles.
> In a Congressional proceeding, you're under oath. Any time a... I know all of that. I was using the fact that we're required to tell congress the truth, but politicians are not required to tell us the truth as a means of backing up the fact that what they say and what really happens oftentimes are 2 very different things. This is accurate across both sides of the spectrum.
> It's not good if they lie, but then who would enforce it... At all times politicians have the opportunity to tell us the truth. We shouldn't need a law for that most basic of needs when deciding who to vote for.
> People engaged in tax avoidance or tax evasion will always find some excuse or reason to be dissatisfied... I was suggesting to lower the barrier to entry. This is a common business strategy for gaining market share. Likewise do I suggest using it to gain a share of people's incomes for the betterment of all who live in the USA. Can I say that my idea will defiantly work 100%? No. But even if it failed miserably, a surplus is better than a dept so we would all see some benefit.
> Wishful thinking is dangerous. Sometime, try testing your assumptions by trying (really hard) to disprove them. Otherwise, you're probably living in a fantasy land and you'll never know it.
Likewise, trusting in politicians and bureaucrats to do "the right thing" is a fantasy. If it were a reality, we would be living in a utopia at this point.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
11 Comments
Back to Article
Threska - Monday, August 7, 2023 - link
Ah, for when one wins the billion dollar lottery.ballsystemlord - Monday, August 7, 2023 - link
Now we both just need to win...mode_13h - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 - link
They're not *that* expensive. Right now, you can buy an 15.4 TB Solidigm TLC datacenter SSD for $1220 from an official reseller. It's more expensive per TB than consumer trash, but nothing a mere millionaire couldn't easily afford. So, I'd guess Kioxia needs to sell this for around $2500, for it to be competitive.If you compare it to high-end gaming graphics cards, it doesn't even look *that* expensive. Not to mention proper workstation CPUs and motherboards.
ballsystemlord - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 - link
No, it is that expensive. But only because the other $999,998,780 must go to the tax man. ;)mode_13h - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 - link
But the debt ceiling deal eliminated the budget to hire IRS auditors. So, you're free to commit tax evasion with virtually no worries of getting caught. It's a perfect racket, until the country goes bankrupt. After that, I'd suggest you ask Greece how much they've enjoyed letting their wealthy citizens get away with tax evasion for so long.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, August 9, 2023 - link
I was trying to be funny above, but it seems this is turning serious, so I will too.All parties in the US depend on the wealthy to fund their campaigns. Saying that one or more parties would be interested in stopping tax fraud of the rich donors would be the equivalent of shooting their party in the foot.
Second, tax laws, like other laws, are often influenced by the legislators concern of how said laws will affect their wealthy donors. So saying that "the rich" will no longer evade taxes is effectively saying that we'll all get taxed more and the wealthy donors will go from cheating to effectively rewriting the rules to further skew the laws in their favor.
Third, even if you get all the tax reforms you want passed, those rich donors will just leave the country for somewhere that doesn't tax them as much.
The ideal solution to this problem is to completely avoid the incentive to cheat and to evade taxation which would mean a complete overhaul of the egregious over spending system that we utilize to this day. Having done so, most of the donors would decide to favor the improved spending goals, switch to paying a more fair share of the taxes, and the those wealthy donors who don't agree would be a much smaller group and could be much more easily prosecuted.
mode_13h - Friday, August 11, 2023 - link
> Saying that one or more parties would be interested in stopping tax fraud> of the rich donors would be the equivalent of shooting their party in the foot.
One party put IRS funding in the infrastructure bill. Then, the other party got a congressional majority and threatened to force the US government to default on its financial obligations, unless they won concessions which included a rollback of the IRS funding increase. That's a fact.
> tax loopholes
Yes. But, it's not enough that they have their loopholes. They also don't even want anyone checking that they paid what they still owed.
> those rich donors will just leave the country
They already hide much of their wealth in tax havens. There are practical limits on their ability to relocate and not be subject to US tax code.
> The ideal solution
"perfect is the enemy of good". At minimum, I just want enforcement so they pay what they owe, under the current system. Once you have enforcement, then reforms become meaningful. Without enforcement, it doesn't really matter what else you do.
> avoid the incentive to cheat
As long as taxes are owed, there will always be an incentive to cheat.
> most of the donors would decide to favor the improved spending goals,
> switch to paying a more fair share of the taxes
LOL, no. Most people evading or avoiding taxes do not believe in paying their fair share of anything.
ballsystemlord - Friday, August 11, 2023 - link
> One party put IRS funding in the infrastructure bill.Yes, but as I pointed out above, if the funding were used for going after the rich donors, then said party would receive less funding because the donors don't want to be taxed more and would have less money to give said party.
Haven't you noticed yet that it's illegal in the US to lie to congress, but politicians can lie to us at will? That's what this is. It's the normal political "promise them one thing, deliver another" type system.
> LOL, no. Most people evading or avoiding taxes do not believe in paying their fair share of anything.
And the last thing they'd want to do is to funnel money into a spending system that's never satisfied. Hence my reasoning that a budget that results in a surplus, however small, would encourage them to pay their fair share.
mode_13h - Saturday, August 12, 2023 - link
> Yes, but as I pointed out above, if the funding were used for going after the rich donorsYes. A large part of the money was to fund auditors. Right row, the IRS doesn't go after wealthy individuals, because they can afford to hire lawyers and make it difficult and expensive for the resource-strapped IRS. Because of this, most of those currently audited are actually low-income individuals. The new funding was set to address this imbalance.
Sometime, you should try actually reading about a subject, before making pronouncements on it.
> Haven't you noticed yet that it's illegal in the US to lie to congress, but politicians can lie to us at will?
In a Congressional proceeding, you're under oath. Any time a member of Congress would be under oath, they would commit perjury upon lying. If you're not under oath, then speech is protected by the 1st Amendment (unless libelous, incitement to violence, etc.). That's how it should be. It's not good if they lie, but then who would enforce it (i.e. decide what's a lie and whether they knew it was a lie)? Criminalizing speech would be an easy way for the party in power to lock up its political opponents.
> the last thing they'd want to do is to funnel money into a spending system that's never satisfied.
People engaged in tax avoidance or tax evasion will always find some excuse or reason to be dissatisfied. They have plenty of loopholes and fancy accountants to lessen their burden, plus the same rights and ability to influence the political process as the rest of us. If, after all that, they're still dissatisfied, too bad. Laws need to be enforced. A country needs to be able to collect taxes to avoid becoming insolvent.
> Hence my reasoning that a budget that results in a surplus
Wishful thinking is dangerous. Sometime, try testing your assumptions by trying (really hard) to disprove them. Otherwise, you're probably living in a fantasy land and you'll never know it.
ballsystemlord - Sunday, August 13, 2023 - link
> Yes. A large part of the money was to fund auditors. ...> Sometime, you should try actually reading about a subject, before making pronouncements on it.
I've read 3 articles on the subject, one of which was very extensive. My "pronouncements", are based on how politicians and bureaucrats operate, not the current narrative of nation changing reform we are lead into by such articles.
> In a Congressional proceeding, you're under oath. Any time a...
I know all of that. I was using the fact that we're required to tell congress the truth, but politicians are not required to tell us the truth as a means of backing up the fact that what they say and what really happens oftentimes are 2 very different things. This is accurate across both sides of the spectrum.
> It's not good if they lie, but then who would enforce it...
At all times politicians have the opportunity to tell us the truth. We shouldn't need a law for that most basic of needs when deciding who to vote for.
> People engaged in tax avoidance or tax evasion will always find some excuse or reason to be dissatisfied...
I was suggesting to lower the barrier to entry. This is a common business strategy for gaining market share. Likewise do I suggest using it to gain a share of people's incomes for the betterment of all who live in the USA.
Can I say that my idea will defiantly work 100%? No. But even if it failed miserably, a surplus is better than a dept so we would all see some benefit.
> Wishful thinking is dangerous. Sometime, try testing your assumptions by trying (really hard) to disprove them. Otherwise, you're probably living in a fantasy land and you'll never know it.
Likewise, trusting in politicians and bureaucrats to do "the right thing" is a fantasy. If it were a reality, we would be living in a utopia at this point.
meacupla - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 - link
Why not just get one of these?https://www.anandtech.com/show/18769/apex-storage-...
It can max out a 16x Gen 4 slot, and is about the cost of a car, depending on what you use with it.