colourwheel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) A huge majority of them were Tea party groups that kept on growing over the past few years. Can you cite a source to back either of these claims? Fine, I'll do the research for you... ;D http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/irs-bias-conservative-tax-status It more than doubled to more than 3,400 you can probably do the math and see that's is a lot of tea party groups if the number of political parties who files for exempt status in 2012 was 3,357. That pretty much leaves just a hand full of liberal groups compared to the number Tea party groups that filed. Based on the Knowledge that a majority of the substantial amount of political groups that filed were in fact tea party groups. going back to this statement... “....there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status and many fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups, then it only makes mathematical sense that more questions would be directed at Tea Party applications.” Maybe the reason why tea party groups were flagged 1st was because of the overwhelming amount of them were trying to dodge from paying taxes even in 2009... Can you cite a source to back either of these claims? This one was not a claim I was just making an educated guess that makes "mathematical sense". Edited July 9, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It more than doubled to more than 3,400 you can probably do the math and see that's is a lot of tea party groups if the number of political parties who files for exempt status in 2012 was 3,357. That pretty much leaves just a hand full of liberal groups compared to the number Tea party groups that filed. Based on the Knowledge that a majority of the substantial amount of political groups that filed were in fact tea party groups.Your claim is that a "huge majority" of the new applicants were tea party groups. The article that you cite does not specify the nature of the new applicants, only that the number of applicants increased. You have not cited a source that backs your claim. This one was not a claim I was just making an educated guess that makes "mathematical sense".It does not make mathematical sense because it is based on an assumption that is not supported by facts, not an educated guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 geez you can be so thick sometimes... http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/13/odonnell-the-real-irs-scandal-happened-in-1959/ “....there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status and many fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups, then it only makes mathematical sense that more questions would be directed at Tea Party applications.” - lawrence o'donnell Here’s how the activity breaks down for 501©(4) applications, the sort of tax-exempt group where political activity is allowed: 2009: 1,7512010: 1,7352011: 2,2652012: 3,357 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/irs-bias-conservative-tax-status "During the 2012 election, many Tea Party groups applied for tax-exempt status under section 501 © (4) of the federal tax code, which grants tax-exempt status to social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organisations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare." "The number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralised its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati." Unless you think lawrence O'Donnell and ezra klein are lying their asses off about "many" fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups and that an influx of tea party groups didn't happen since 2009 then it's hard not to believe that a huge majority of them to be tea party groups. Better yet TRoaches, you cite info proving that there was not a huge majority of tea party applications compared to liberal group applications since this whole outrage and "scandal" has been about how so many tea party groups were targeted to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Unless you think lawrence O'Donnell and ezra klein are lying their asses off about "many" fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups and that an influx of tea party groups didn't happen since 2009 then it's hard not to believe that a huge majority of them to be tea party groups.Neither Klein or O'Donnel claim that the majority of the new applicants were tea party groups. They only theorize that "many" of them were tea party groups, and they do so under the questionable premise that a perceived increase in tea party activity during that time would correlate to an increase in such applications. This is not the same as assuming that a "huge majority" were tea party groups. Better yet TRoaches, you cite info proving that there was not a huge majority of tea party applications compared to liberal group applicationsI did not make any claims regarding the statistical composition of the new applicants. I only questioned your claim. There is no need for me to cite a source to back a claim that I did not make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's hopeless to argue with you Troaches. Even if you don't think a majority of groups were tea party groups. 3,357 political groups in 2012 is a lot to go through despite if you think it was handled unfairly or not. I personally just feel everyone should stop wasting time looking for someone to blame and fix the tax code if the IRS has been unfairly targeting groups and people for decades and decades all the way back to your claim of Jefferson Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's hopeless to argue with you Troaches. No, it is hopeless to argue ineffectively with me. Even if you don't think a majority of groups were tea party groups. 3,357 political groups in 2012 is a lot to go through despite if you think it was handled unfairly or not.Fairness is essential when levying taxes. I personally just feel everyone should stop wasting time looking for someone to blame and fix the tax code if the IRS has been unfairly targeting groups and people for decades and decades all the way back to your claim of Jefferson Davis.Again, what changes do you propose that would "fix" the tax code? It is easy to say that it should be fixed, but determining what fixes should be applied is a bit more difficult. The allegation is not that the IRS has been unfairly targeting political groups since its creation. It is that they began doing so under the current administration. My statement about Jefferson Davis was obviously satire in response to your statement that Eisenhower was to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) For the record I never personally blamed Eisenhower for anything. Edited July 9, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 We are done here. Colour you can't call people thick. Since this has degraded to name calling it is being closed. I suggest some of you look for another place to play for a time.~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts