• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should tax-evading Gulf Oil victims be entitled to compensation?

Should tax-evading Gulf Oil victims be entitled to compensation?


  • Total voters
    13

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What do you think? I heard on NPR that many people, especially in the fishing industry, are having trouble making claims because they were operating on a cash basis, not paying taxes, and therefore can't prove their income. There's talk of an amnesty for these tax evaders, so they can be helped in this time of crisis.

I have mixed feelings about this. Poll will follow.
 
Help those in need. Settle the taxes later.
 
Help those in need. Settle the taxes later.

So, if they kept no records, do you take their word for it? What about people who played by the rules? Should they alway be picking up the slack for those who don't?
 
I picked other. The tax issue is between them and the federal and state(if they have to pay state taxes) government, not BP. Surely they must have some way of proving income in order for BP to compensate them. BP has nothing to do with whether or not someone pays their taxes. Suggesting that BP shouldn't compensate someone who doesn't pay their taxes is like saying someone who wrecks into your car shouldn't pay for the damages if you haven't paid your house loan off.
 
Last edited:
There needs to be a legitimate system to properly compensate these people being effected by the Gulf. If they don't have any way to prove the amount of income that they made, they should not be compensated for it. And I personally wouldn't accept receipts or accounting records... anything in those can be changed or forged. I would only look at the tax forms they submitted.
 
What do you think? I heard on NPR that many people, especially in the fishing industry, are having trouble making claims because they were operating on a cash basis, not paying taxes, and therefore can't prove their income. There's talk of an amnesty for these tax evaders, so they can be helped in this time of crisis.

I have mixed feelings about this. Poll will follow.

this same scenario occures when the government processes disaster loans
if the business cannot show it has submitted federal tax returns, then the presumption is that firm has already realized its "assistance" thru nonpayment of taxes, which deprives that firm of any eligibility for funding
don't know why that should be any different here, otherwise anyone could claim that they had a business which was adversely impacted by the spill
 
It's not against the law to deal in cash and many times you may not be required to pay taxes or even file because you didn't make enough. However, you should still have records. Otherwise, I say no to compensation. Too easy to file fraudulant claims.
We have enough tax cheats in goverment. we don't need to reward even more of them.
 
What do you think? I heard on NPR that many people, especially in the fishing industry, are having trouble making claims because they were operating on a cash basis, not paying taxes, and therefore can't prove their income. There's talk of an amnesty for these tax evaders, so they can be helped in this time of crisis.

I have mixed feelings about this. Poll will follow.

I think they are entitled to compensation from BP, but amnesty for tax evasion shouldn't be granted. Just because they have committed a crime doesn't mean they shouldn't get compensation when they themselves are a victim of a crime. That's like saying the police shouldn't prosecute people who murder thieves.
 
I think they are entitled to compensation from BP, but amnesty for tax evasion shouldn't be granted. Just because they have committed a crime doesn't mean they shouldn't get compensation when they themselves are a victim of a crime. That's like saying the police shouldn't prosecute people who murder thieves.
I'm confused. If they have no proof they were injured by the spill how are they going to be compensated? Do we just stick it to BP and say they must compensate anyone who says they were injured?
As far as a thief being murdered, there are times it shouldn't be prosecuted. If someone breaks into my home to steal from me, I have every right to shoot him dead.
 
What do you think? I heard on NPR that many people, especially in the fishing industry, are having trouble making claims because they were operating on a cash basis, not paying taxes, and therefore can't prove their income. There's talk of an amnesty for these tax evaders, so they can be helped in this time of crisis.

I have mixed feelings about this. Poll will follow.

They don't need amnesty from the IRS. If they can't prove their claims (for any reason, honest or otherwise), then they shouldn't be entitled to compensation from BP. That's just how our legal system operates; the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If they can prove their claims, then they should be entitled to compensation from BP and the IRS should audit them.
 
Since the compensation is ultimately being paid out by BP, I see no reason whatsoever for a disagreement with the IRS to get in the way of being compensated for losses. BP's responsibilities are in no way negated, mitigated or balanced by actions taken by anyone other than BP.

If someone is dumb enough to claim losses on income they don't report to the IRS, and they get caught, that's a matter to be settled separately.
 
They don't need amnesty from the IRS. If they can't prove their claims (for any reason, honest or otherwise), then they shouldn't be entitled to compensation from BP. That's just how our legal system operates; the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If they can prove their claims, then they should be entitled to compensation from BP and the IRS should audit them.

Makes sense to me.
 
I'm confused. If they have no proof they were injured by the spill how are they going to be compensated? Do we just stick it to BP and say they must compensate anyone who says they were injured?
As far as a thief being murdered, there are times it shouldn't be prosecuted. If someone breaks into my home to steal from me, I have every right to shoot him dead.

I didn't say my solution was an absolute. I think these cash-only businesses should be compensated as well as the evidence they do have will let them.
 
As far as a thief being murdered, there are times it shouldn't be prosecuted. If someone breaks into my home to steal from me, I have every right to shoot him dead.

Absolutely correct.

It's what is known as an affirmative defense.
 
What do you think? I heard on NPR that many people, especially in the fishing industry, are having trouble making claims because they were operating on a cash basis, not paying taxes, and therefore can't prove their income. There's talk of an amnesty for these tax evaders, so they can be helped in this time of crisis.

I have mixed feelings about this. Poll will follow.

Yes, because ideally, this should be between BP and the people harmed. The government is involved, but the damage portion is not really a government issue even though it has been politicized.
 
Yes, because ideally, this should be between BP and the people harmed. The government is involved, but the damage portion is not really a government issue even though it has been politicized.

So, should BP take people's self declarations of income, lacking a tax return proof, and hand out money to them? Or should they require proof, in the form of a tax return.

Incidentally, I received FEMA money a few years back, after a flood. The FEMA guy just came, schmoozed, looked around, and basically took my word as to the damage. Nice guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom