this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
906 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2411 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For years, conservative billionaires have treated Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas to opulent vacations and trips on their private jets. If these were anything other than disinterested gifts, then they’re taxable — and Thomas owes the IRS a huge bill.

When Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas flouted longstanding ethics laws by refusing to disclose billionaire gifts, he avoided public outrage for years. Based on new revelations about the potential motivations behind those gifts, he also may have avoided laws requiring Americans to pay taxes on such donations, legal experts say.

Recent reporting from ProPublica revealed that Thomas was showered with luxury gifts from wealthy benefactors, including vacations, private flights, school tuition, and even a loan for a high-end RV. Though Thomas has insisted the gifts were just the innocent generosity of friends, many came after he threatened to resign over the justices’ low salaries — and one of Thomas’s vacation companions said the money was given to supplement the justice’s “limited salary.”

According to experts, if these benefits were given to Thomas as a way to buttress his regular pay and keep him on the court, they could be considered a taxable transaction rather than a gift. By refusing to publicly disclose such transactions, Thomas made it impossible for watchdog groups to alert tax-enforcement officials about the potential issue in real time.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 186 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

"By refusing to publicly disclose such transactions, Thomas made it impossible for watchdog groups to alert tax-enforcement officials about the potential issue in real time."

How does a "public servant" get to just choose to not release financial transactions?

Mind-boggling

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 99 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How does a "public servant" get to just choose to not release financial transactions?

By having a lifetime appointment that no one will ever take away from you.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

By being handpicked by the oligarchy to implement their will.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He's not the servant, he thinks he's the Lord

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately, he effectively is.

The supreme court is way too insulated from reality, or consequences.

Yes there are checks, but they are effectively impossible in this century

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

There's no automatic process for it comparable to the process by which workers' wages are automatically reported to the IRS. It's an honor system, and movement conservatives have no honor.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 102 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

So I am not a legal eagle, but it sounds to me like no matter what either one of the following is true:

A) Thomas accepted bribes from conservative malefactors to remain in on the court and rule consistently with their politics, which is corrupt.

B) Thomas accepted the same as "gifts," pretending that they came with no strings attached, and failed to report them on his taxes. Which is illegal.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah, you forgot the only option conservatives can entertain as true: everyone does it anyway and liberals are only caring about it now to [favorite culture war paranoid fantasy].

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In Clarence Thomas' case, it gives them a convenient excuse to call people on the left racists. Because apparently it's racist when a black person is a Republican and you criticize them fairly.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago

To be fair, it's racist when anyone is a Republican.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Potentially. The government would have to actually prove the supposed gifts were actually payment in exchange for some sort of consideration or work. Legitimate gifts are subject to exemptions and generally taxed on the gift giver's side as well.

Each individual can give out somewhere around $17k per recipient per year tax free and then beyond that a total of currently around $12M in total gifts over that limit tax free in a lifetime.

I agree it doesn't pass the smell test generally but nowadays you essentially need direct unequivocal proof of it being a bribe.

[–] Froyn@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If only we had some kind of record showing how he ruled when cases they were "interested in" were put before the court...

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

It's not that easy because you don't bribe a Supreme Court Justice for decades because of the one case that might involve a company you're invested in. They're trying to align his decisions with their political opinions, and keep him from retiring so someone who doesn't share their political opinions doesn't get his spot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If the IRS, in the early days of Covid, can go after me for making a 200 dollar mistake 3 years prior they can throw his ass in jail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

This sort of thing helps me understand why the first thing the house GOP majority leader demanded was defunding of the IRS. Not only is their commanding majority for the next generation on the high court vulnerable if the justices are audited, the new house majority leader has shady finances and claims not to have a bank account with any reportable amount of money in it

Yeah I hope they get audited and it's uncomfortable AF

[–] urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I am not allowed to accept gifts at work valued more than $50 because I am part of a tip pool.

And I don't want to, because it would make me feel guilty. I am no one of consequence.

I am burdened with the ethics of accepting sealed Christmas cards on the job.

[–] Case@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 10 months ago

I briefly worked as a state employee, IT for a school district.

I swear I had a full day during orientation regarding "gifts." What was considered a gift, who the actual giver was, limitations on receiving them, how to report them however minor, etc.

The only time it came up was during an emergency that required an extended shift. Overtime pay would have been considered a "gift of the state" and wasn't allowed (somehow? I was young, whatever) and I got half a day off rather than OT pay. Coming from a retail background, half a day off and I didn't lose any money? Pretty sweet in my mind at the time.

[–] FReddit@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I had to turn down an offer of free soup from a company I interviewed.

And this asshole rakes in millions in graft.

Justice is indeed blind.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 2 points 10 months ago

The rules only get applied to those under the people making them. Back when I started my job there where similar admonishments about accepting vendor gifts and such. My role involved classifying sites to allow access at the behest of clients, one which came from an executive assistant to allow a vendor to take said exec to the Superbowl.

Rules where subsequently tighened/reenforced so maybe that wouldn't happen today. The scoutus has continued to resist any sort of oversight claiming sufficient self governance for similar reasons though. Their own judgement is the only one valid in their opinion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Any minute now something will be done to show Thomas’s actions have consequences! Any minute now…. any minute….

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Remember when we waited 4 years for Trump to lose an election and we still aren't rid of the fuck wit?

Thomas should have never been on the court considering Anita but here we are....

If our government were a spectrum of good vs bad the bad far outweighs the good.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We know. He’s a conservative.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Id bet my paltry retirement fund on the fact that more than most Republicans in government also are comitting tax fraud and easily around half of all Democrats there too.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

I know literal drug dealers who have been more honest with the IRS than Clarence Thomas.

That's a hell of a sentence to write lol

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Well I just asked everyone in Congress and they all said that they are definitely not doing that and where did I get that silly idea from. So I guess you are losing your retirement.

[–] zxk@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

CLARENCE THOMAS WEARS MAGA PAJAMAS

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago

Of course he is. He's of the class that openly flouts the law.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if they were disinterested, gifts in excess of a certain value are taxable. Last I checked, the threshold was $12,000. The gifts Thomas received seem likely to have exceed that threshold. If he didn't report them on his taxes, he is committing tax fraud.

[–] homura1650@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

The giver is responsible for reporting gifts and paying taxes on them, so Thomas is clear on that front. Currently, the yearly exemption is $17,000 (per donor/donee pair). Beyond that the giver must report gifts, but still doesn't owe unless they (the donor) have reached their lifetime exemption of $13 million.

[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Treason and tax fraud! How long do you think you would get away with those crimes?

Like George Carlin said, "It's a big club, and YOU ain't in it!"

[–] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Damn, I got excited when I thought the article implied he was charged for tax fraud.

[–] Jaderick@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

They made the case that he is doing tax fraud, but the government is extremely limited/ just won’t charge him because of his position.

If Clarence won’t leave then I hope the other way a Supreme Court Justice leaves their seat comes extremely soon.

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Isn't he still a citizen. How is the law not applied? When is action taken, and by who. The IRS?

[–] Kalysta@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The founders dropped the ball when they gave us no way to recall a supreme court justice.

Granted their massive failure of imagination has ended us up with the shitshow that is congress today

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

They were all high on opium and/or cocaine and thought humans could be property. Maybe not the best people to build a government.

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

We can impeach a justice.

But that hasn’t been tried since Jefferson’s day.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 8 points 10 months ago

I saw “Committing tax fraud.” And immediately thought ‘Yoshi’.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] silkroadtraveler 3 points 10 months ago

And absolutely NOTHING will be done about it. Our system is broken and built to favor the criminal wealthy class and keep everyone else in perpetual submission.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Our elected officials and their appointments are all greedy, opportunistic bastards, a reflection of the people they govern. Garbage in, garbage out.

Our people would have to abandon their delusions of living materially superior lifestyles to other Americans if we wanted to have politicians and judges appointed by politicians that even entertain the notion of their offices being public service and not just another all American profit grift as they are treated today.

Our nation and increasingly the world under our capitalist's pressure live solely by "what's in it for MEEEEEE?"

In what fucking universe could anyone credibly think that a culture, society, or civilization dominated by the core value of ~~rational self-interest~~ insatiable greed could ever yield selfless public servants?

The concept of private property, not to be confused with personal property, is dooming us all, and we're all so indoctrinated into the zero sum mindset of "other people have to lose for me to feel like a big winnah" that I don't see any hope without a painful collapse to remind us all of the human suffering we inflict on swaths of people, like our homeless populations, with complete apathy under this garbage culture and economy.

Clarance Thomas, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, etc are all symptoms of the greed disease that's killing us. If they all dissappeared tomorrow, there'd be 2 greedy assholes each the next day vying to take their places and take up their grift. Our practiced core values would have to change for that to change.

They won't change though, so carry on with the ironic outrage about this greedy opportunist doing what we're all encouraged to do from Kindergarten through Colleges of Economics: doing what he can get away with to get his, and fuck everyone else 🇺🇸

load more comments
view more: next ›