Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Trying to find alternative uses for the terms "supple," "pert," and "seminiferous" since 2004
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(547)
-
▼
July
(61)
- Oh, right...
- Things that are bad
- Penny Arcade on E3
- Conservative boot camp
- Gay marriage op-ed
- Totally the wrong question
- Fuck Lieberman
- Some people are really fucking stupid
- Bad Condi! No biscuit!
- Reading between the lines
- Nick answers your "Ask Slashdot" questions
- Did the world really need this?
- Indecency fines are so goddamn stupid
- Overzealous posting
- How to fuck with your neighbors
- Best. Job. Ever.
- You've seen Rube Goldberg devices
- The Flat Life
- The Amazing Screw-On Head
- Dear climate change nay-sayers:
- How to kill your sex drive forever
- Pictures with water
- You can't handle the Hulk!
- Actual electoral college reform...
- Fuck New York
- Misuse of "literally"
- This is your fault
- Quick Bush update
- How to fuck with people at a truck stop
- No global warming
- Fucking inexcusable
- We don't need to protect the planet, apparently
- Mirror, mirror, you useless floosy/What's the temp...
- An Organic Pun-fest
- Portal
- Ow.
- Of dubious utility
- There goes my retirement plan
- Just in case you were running low on reasons to de...
- iPods don't fix everything
- Wikipedia vindication
- Sweet real estate opportunity
- My continued yuppification
- The state of our government
- On choosing to go to graduate school
- Grrr.
- Bye bye Bruthe!
- Gays can't get married because straights are such ...
- You've got crabs!
- Poor India
- Santorum
- How the Japanese entertain themselves
- Not only are Republicans douchebags, they're hypoc...
- Quotes of jaded idealism
- Top 99 Most Desirable Women
- Indirect fame
- A good idea from our government?!
- Google antitrust
- Real life pac-man
- Freedom of the press
- Sandcastles
-
▼
July
(61)
About Me
Tracker
2 comments:
This might be one of those things that actually makes sense but that the NY Times jumps the gun on deeming (yet another) subversive White House machination because they're pissed off about something else. Remember the "secret" plans to track terrorist finances?
Short-sighted horse shit. It's not just about how much revenue you get from doing the audits themselves...it's about deterring misreporting, and indeed that's the whole point of probabilistic auditing. Auditing fewer returns means lower chance of getting audited, which in turns means higher incentive to misreport. And we're talking about a bracket that is very good at calculating expected returns, so you better believe they're paying attention to those values.
If they're shifting the resources to auditing more higher-income returns in general, fine. I'm okay with that, but I'll believe it when I see it. After this shit, I'm dubious.
Post a Comment