How The Rich & Powerful Skirt The Law

Some argue that lowering taxes across the board, yet eliminating tax incentives, credits, loopholes could result in a higher average tax % overall. I've already paid over $30k in fed, SS, and Medicare taxes this year, but wouldn't mind paying a slightly higher % IF the government could demonstrate an ability to be responsible with managing it. The reason the ultra-wealthy pay lower effective rates is because capital gains are not tiered like income. So someone earning $250k is paying on average close to 30%, but someone living off of $250k investment money is paying 10%. I like the idea of lower capital gains taxes, it tends to encourage people to save and take responsibility for their own financial future, however I would argue that the tax %'s for CGs should also be tiered to help keep the ultra-wealthy in line with the rest of the other income brackets. Not many people earn the massive incomes as an employee, but generally accumulate them via investments.

The top tax bracket only really affects the people working for the money, so yeah, Gates, Buffet, Soros, would all support it of course... they aren't earning their paychecks. I believe it was Buffet who said his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, and that's strictly because of the capital gains tax rate.

Analyzing the loopholes and tax shelter options only further complicates the situation... isn't the tax code for the IRS 30,000 some pages?

You are off the mark, dragon. Way off. We're not discussing the tax code or reforming the tax structure.

The question is whether or not you believe that the rich and powerful are able to get away crimes against the poor because they are able to tip the scales of justice in their favor with their money and influence.

When this case first came to light, I thought it was just a set-up.

Any reasonable person would ask why would a man as wealthy as Dominique would not simply call a provider if he needed stress relief before his flight instead of attacking a lowly maid who only came to clean his room?

However, as the case unfolded, it became apparent that this was the standard operating procedure of this arrogant predator. He's done this many times before and gotten away with it.

If he had committed this offense in France, he would have gotten away Scott free, but I was relieved to hear that he was pulled off his plane only minutes before take off.

Now they are digging up all the dirt they can on the defendant to shatter her creditability and the case against him is already unraveling before it even goes to trial.

There have been numerous women who had come forth after his arrest to say he had tried to foist himself on them too.

I was hoping that his conviction would send a strong message to France making it clear that condoning such behavior is not acceptable and to encourage rape victims to report such crimes.

. . . Once a predator gets away with his despicable crime he becomes even more embolden and believes he now has tacit approval from society to continue his predatory behavior.

FG, I was responding to BigTex's comments regarding the taxes -didn't mean to hijack the thread.

As for the rich and powerful influencing the scales of justice, I absolutely agree that it happens all too often. Sometimes it's outright bribery and intimidation, and other times it's just the fact that one person can afford a team of lawyers while the other takes whoever gets assigned or has to represent themselves. As for this guys case, it's hard to really say for me, because I don't know anything about him other than what's been in the news. I could see it highly likely that both sides are right, even. He could very well have behaved as she had claimed. Also, she could very easily have tried to capitalize on the situation by exploring ways to extract more money from the deal instead of simply filing charges right away.

Money has nothing to do with why the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn is unraveling at this point. For good or for ill, his lawyers have little to do with it. All the water that the case is taking is coming from facts uncovered by the prosecutors at this point. Frankly, it's beginning to look like he's not guilty, or even innocent. But I don't see any way that the State can make it's burden at this point. Their own witnesses lies have sunk their case.

What about Jeffrey Epstein?

http://www.newser.com/story/96085/how-this-billionaire-escaped-sex-trafficking-charges.html

That is a horse of a totally different color.

Jeffery was enticing younger girls which is bad enough, but not forcing them.

Dominique was about assaulting women which is inexcusable.

DSK needs to be taught a lesson or he will continue his predatory ways.

The district attorney who should be more concerned about dispensing justice appears to already be tucking his tail between his legs and shying away from a fight under cover of flamboyant rhetoric.

As Sun Tzu wisely observed centuries ago, "Every battle is won or lost before it is even fought" These battles are played out in the minds of the attorneys before they meet on the battlefield.

It looks like the defense attorneys for the rich slime ball have won the mental chess game these attorneys play before the trial and convinced Cyrus Vance Jr that he is going to lose this case.

In trying to protect his reputation, Cyrus Vance Jr is showing the world just how spineless he really is.

If he fought and lost this case he would still look more courageous than if he didn't have the balls to even enter the ring.

Whatever bullshit rationalization he wants to paint his withdrawal with it still adds up to being cowardly.

Justice isn't blind to money, power, or influence, but in this man's case, after reading what I have about this case, I sincerely believe that this guy is innocent, and that whatever happened was consensual. I think she was planning on setting him up all along. It looks like she was paid to do this to him.

DSK needs to be taught a lesson or he will continue his predatory ways.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Even if he's not guilty and you have to manufacture evidence to do it, right??!!

Here's a pretty good quote from an article on this case today:

The case exposes the “punish first, figure out what happened later” state of American justice that is usually visited upon “ordinary schnooks,” said Eugene J. O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan. . . .

“I think that any high-profile case exposes routine police work, and when you get into the guts of routine police work it is often not a pretty picture,” Mr. O’Donnell said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/ny...med-solid.html

I have always thought it strange why so many posters on these pages (and on the P) feel the wealthy should not pay their share of taxes. Perhaps these posters are wealthy themselves, if so, I can better understand. I strongly suspect they are not any better off than I am. I have never minded paying my proportionate share of taxes and have never complained about doing so. But to listen to some of our posters claim class warfare each and every time it is mentioned to rescend the Bush tax cuts you would think every one of them is in the $250,000 + a year tax bracket.

It remains a mystery to me. Hell, I wish I had a job that paid me enough that I would have to pay $100,000 + per year in taxes! Originally Posted by bigtex

Good call. First off, the tax increase on people who have $250,000 in taxable income is 3%. If someone's taxable income is $350,000, they would pay an additional $3000. Their taxes go up $3000 for every $100,000 (above $250,000) in taxable income. If someone made $1,000,000, the additional tax would be $22,500 (.03 X 750,000 = 22,500) This is 1 mill of taxable income, after all deductions, credits, mortgage interest, etc. (they have a lot more deductions than you).

That's right, if they make $350,000, they pay an extra three thousand dollars. The increase is 3% on the amount above $250,000. If they made $260,000 they would pay an extra $300.

Back to the main topic.

Someone mentioned just because the witness has credibility issues doesn't mean she is lying. That's true.

Just because he is a womanizer doesn't mean he is guilty this time. That is true.

“I was hoping that this case would teach France some manners in the process, but France may just end up shooting the finger to America and DSK may continue his despicable ways.”

Irony sure is ironic. Y’all are wrong on many different levels this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/wo....html?src=recg

In America, reasonable doubt is all that is required for a not guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is where you find it. This time the "victim" raises a bumper crop of doubt herself. It looks like if this is "attack the victim", the victim may be the one who was jailed. Big money buys good attorneys, it doesn't falsify criminal investigations or buy the prosecutor's office off.

That is a horse of a totally different color.

Jeffery was enticing younger girls which is bad enough, but not forcing them.

Dominique was about assaulting women which is inexcusable.

DSK needs to be taught a lesson or he will continue his predatory ways.

The district attorney who should be more concerned about dispensing justice appears to already be tucking his tail between his legs and shying away from a fight under cover of flamboyant rhetoric.

Wrong. Dispensing justice does not include taking a case to trial you can't win. You have convicted him (DSK) without a trial, and without knowing the condition of the case you are besmirching the abilities of the district attorney.

As Sun Tzu wisely observed centuries ago, "Every battle is won or lost before it is even fought" These battles are played out in the minds of the attorneys before they meet on the battlefield.
He also said, "He will win who knows when to fight and when
not to fight". This is one battle of a war for the New York district attorney. They don't care what you think.

It looks like the defense attorneys for the rich slime ball have won the mental chess game these attorneys play before the trial and convinced Cyrus Vance Jr that he is going to lose this case.
Wrong again. The prosecutor's office found the problems. You would have them bury the issues and proceed with a case the defense could shred? IE shredding a case means there was no real case.

In trying to protect his reputation, Cyrus Vance Jr is showing the world just how spineless he really is.
Wrong again. It shows he knows what he is doing.

If he fought and lost this case he would still look more courageous than if he didn't have the balls to even enter the ring.
What would Sun Tzu say about, for no good reason, entering/fighting a ring/battle? Would he care how someone like you perceives him?

Whatever bullshit rationalization he wants to paint his withdrawal with it still adds up to being cowardly.
And the survey sez! Wrong yet again. The reason why has been covered. Can you figure it out?

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Without the presumption of guilt, none of your points are valid.

No, of course not.

If the man is truly innocent then he should be declared innocent by all means, but I want to see real justice served not just some kangaroo court bought with big money setting him free by disgracing the victim further.

What I am opposed to is the DA not having the balls to even bring him to trial because he is more concerned with how his political image may be damaged if he loses the trial.

As I said in my initial posts, I first thought this guy had been set up, but as background information trickled out, it became apparent that this was his standard modus operandi. That is what set off alarm bells in my head.

Even if he is brought to trial there is no guarantee that justice will be served as was the case with O.J. Simpson who got away with murder, but he should stand trial and account for his behavior.

. . . This is another case of David pitted against Goliath, but unlike the Biblical story, in this world it is usually Goliath who smashes David and the justice system now seems to be taking away David's sling before the match even begins!

Even if he's not guilty and you have to manufacture evidence to do it, right??!! Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No, of course not.

If the man is truly innocent then he should be declared innocent by all means, but I want to see real justice served not just some kangaroo court bought with big money setting him free by disgracing the victim further.
Nothing less than guilty will satisfy you. If you re-read the article you will see big money (other than the big money she helped launder) wasn't needed to disgrace her. Her life choices disgraced her.

What I am opposed to is the DA not having the balls to even bring him to trial because he is more concerned with how his political image may be damaged if he loses the trial.
There are no witnesses other than he and she. There appears to be hard evidence developing she was trying to squeeze him. There is circumstantial evidence out the wazoo. No prosecuting attorney in the US would take this case to trial. If you can't see the overwhelming reasonable doubt here, you have convicted him without a trial.

As I said in my initial posts, I first thought this guy had been set up, but as background information trickled out, it became apparent that this was his standard modus operandi. That is what set off alarm bells in my head.
Then you should be able to post a link or 2 that document previous sexual assaults.

Even if he is brought to trial there is no guarantee that justice will be served as was the case with O.J. Simpson who got away with murder, but he should stand trial and account for his behavior.
Yeah OJ did get away with it. Remind me how that relates to this case in any way.

. . . This is another case of David pitted against Goliath, but unlike the Biblical story, in this world it is usually Goliath who smashes David and the justice system now seems to be taking away David's sling before the match even begins! Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

No, this is like the Lacrosse team rape. It has nothing to do with an underdog vs. a tyrannical heathen.

Thanks, Cyrus Vance Jr.

If you had balls as big as your mouth, you'd bring the clown to trial.

. . . Justice should be blind, but too often big money just buys justice and tramples over the victim.

Perhaps what this case reveals is not the way guilty people who have money are able to get away with their crimes, but the way innocent people who don't have money are not able to defend themselves against unjust prosecutions.