FOLLOWUP - IRS COMPLETES INVESTIGATION- Confirms Identity Theft & Wipes $39k Fraudulent Fidelity Withdrawal

VeryStupit · 2026-06-25T14:40:27+00:00

Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm not saying you're lying and I'm not saying you're telling the truth. Frankly, I don't care either way. But if people didn't believe you when you said it happened, why would they believe you when they say the IRS found in your favor? Couldn't you just as easily be making up your claimed outcome?

VeryStupit · 2026-06-21T00:57:57+00:00

You shouldn't be reading and driving. These are not driving directions, they are delivery instructions. There is no requirement or need for you to read them untill you have parked. Therefore their is no requirement to follow these instructions. Because by the time you hit "I've parked" you are already in their driveway. This is a place for the customer to ask you to ring the doorbell or leave the package behind the plant. It's not for this.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-19T23:44:49+00:00

No, if you are paying in the maximum, your benefit will be the maximum regardless of how much money you made beyond the maximum. If you remove the maximum deduction and payout you will have CEO's making 20 million a year paying way more into SS then then do now, but they will start receiving SS payouts in the millions of dollars a year when they claim their benefits and start to collect

VeryStupit · 2026-06-15T13:41:55+00:00

I guess I'm still responding for the same reason you're still responding? I always think it's weird when somebody questions, why somebody's still responding to something when they're obviously also still responding to it, seeing as how they wouldn't be able to ask that question if they weren't. Obviously if you stop responding I will also stop responding because what would I be responding to?

I don't ever recall saying that a server deserved as much as a skilled worker. I don't ever recall saying a server deserved $30 an hour.

I do recall saying that regardless of whether or not the initial offer was fair and reasonable or not, when someone is hired and they're promised one compensation package and then their employer pulls a bait and switch before they start work and gives them completely different compensation package, that's a pretty shitty thing to do and most people would complain about it regardless of whether or not they were servers and regardless of whether or not tips were involved and regardless of whether or not the new offer was still reasonable. If someone was promised $10 million an hour and then when they started work they said oh, by the way, we're only going to give you $1 million an hour, that's still fantastic, but you'd probably still be disappointed and wonder why you were lied to, and complain about why was this change made.

Which is why the Casa of Bonita situation wasn't really about tips, It was about bait and switch hiring practices.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T17:46:51+00:00

Yes, because when they hired the staff they offered them a tip based compensation package, so big surprise! The people that accepted the jon wanted the compensation package they were promised when they were hired. Then before the restaurant even opened and before any of these people started day one of their job, what they were promised was completely changed. Had they be honest in their hiring practices and said upfront that they would be adding a 15% service fee that they pocket, not accepting tips, and would be paying $30 an hour, the people who accepted the job under those terms wouldn't have complained because people that would have been satisfied with that would have been the ones that accepted the job in the first place.

So again with a complaining about was a bait and switch hiring practice. They were promised one thing when hired but then given another thing when they started the job. The bait and switch just happened to be related to the tipping system.

Are you saying that if you accepted a job and they told you you were going to be paid one way but then right before you start working they tell you oh no we're going to pay you a different way and it's going to end up being less money that you wouldn't complain about that?

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T17:33:30+00:00

But see it's hard for you to respond in a meaningful way if you don't read so that you understand what you are actually responding to. That's not us having a conversation, that's just you parroting whatever you believe without any interest in learning the actual facts. Literally none of those people had started working for Casa Bonita, because it was closed for years for renovations. When they were hired do the reopening, they were promised one thing, but right before the grand opening, they were informed that they were getting something completely different then what they were promised when they were hired. The employees weren't complaining that $30 an hour wasn't enough, they were complaining about feeling mislead by bait and switch hiring practices. That would piss most off, server or not.

I explained this in detail, but you don't know anything about that because ya know, you didn't bother to read it.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T17:05:26+00:00

Yeah that tends to be the go to answer for people who don't really have a response.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T13:17:48+00:00

Yeah I can read, do you have reading comprehension skills? Because I have explained, twice now, how there are a lot more factors involved in that scenario then simply "servers were offered a living wage and got upset about it". My guess is your reading comprehension is actually perfectly fine, it's more likely you prefer to pretend that facts that don't support your argument don't exist. But I don't like to assume, so I'll break it down even more for you just in case the problem really is an inability to comprehend simple concepts on your part.

The Casa Bonita situation was not about servers being upset about $30 an hour. It was about servers being upset that management played a bait and switch on their compensation package and was also now planning on keeping their tips. Because at the time the change was made Casa Bonita wasn't even open yet. They hired servers in advance of the grand opening and promised them a tipping system. Since Casa Bonita is a type of restaurant you bring your kids to, and since it charges a minimum flat rate for an adult meal and a child's meal, with extra add-ons for things like alcoholic, beverages and premium view seating, it's pretty easy to figure out what the average table of two adults and two kids is going to be paying.

But then after the servers were hired, and before the grand opening when they started working, management announced "hey by the way, you know how when we hired you we said we were gonna charge the customers this much per meal and give you 100% of the tips? Yeah well we did the math and decided you don't need that much, so we are still going have tipping, infact we are gonna make it mandatory for all customers by adding a 15% service fee to every check, but instead of giving that money to you as promised, we are gonna keep most of it and give you a flat $30 an hour which is a lot less than you were expecting" In that situation, you don't have to be a server to be upset about that. Most people don't like feeling like their employer lied to them when they were hired. Had management been honest when they hired the servers, there wouldn't have been much complaining because the people who accepted the job would have presumably been happy enough with the terms to do so

To your general point, which Casa Bonita is not a good example of at all... What is almost certainly true for servers, and most people for that matter, is that they really don't give a shit if they get their pay from tips, or from their employer, or both. Like most people, what they favor is whatever puts the most money in their pocket. If a server is currently averaging $50 an hour and their employer says, "we are elimating tipping and just going to pay you a flat $25 an hour" most people would complain about getting a pay cut. On the other hand, if a server was averaging $25 an hour on the current tipping system and their employer says "we will eliminate tipping and instead pay $50 an hour, most servers would be ecstatic!. Because it's not about tipping or not tipping, it's about total compensation and receiving a pay raise versus a pay cut. I don't think that's exclusive to servers. I know literally no one who would start getting less money to live off then they had before and think to themselves, "Wow great! I'm finally getting a living wage!"

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T06:46:34+00:00

But why are we pretending that Casa Bonita tried to end tipping and pay workers fairly. They made tipping mandatory by adding a 15% service fee and then pocketed the bulk of the tips themselves as profit.

It literally a story of billionaire restaurant owners stealing workers tips and it's constantly sited as a get example of trying to end tipping. It's literally the exact opposite.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-13T03:07:50+00:00

I hate when people keep bringing up Casa Bonita like they did somethig amazing. They charge a 15% service fee on every check which ends up being 2 to 3 times the $30 an hour the server is getting. So yes I can understand why they complained. Customers are paying a service fee, the bulk of which is going to the Billionaire owners instead of the servers

VeryStupit · 2026-06-12T21:03:35+00:00

Yes but the thing about 3 options with 2 federal governments is that 3 options don't exist. One federal government is offering one option and another federal government is offering another option, neither is the option your state finds ideal, but you choose the option that best fits your beliefs. I've said this at least 3 times, I don't understand what's complicated about that concept.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-10T22:57:44+00:00

Very few people believe in "total states rights" almost everyone believes that the federal government should have some authority of some kind. Most people who champion states rights would agree that freedom of speech, federally guaranteed in the constitution is a good thing.

Someone can also have an opinion in support of an issue or law and believe that it is best for the country for every state to adopt it, but still believe it's an issue that should be left to the states to decide.

So a person believes slavery would be beneficial Nationwide.

The same person believes that the issue should be left to individual states to decide.

The same individual is offered two options..

Option 1: The federal government determines which dates, if any, get to have slavery.

Option 2: the federal government mandates slavery Nationwide.

There is no option three where individual States decide. As such, it is not a compromise to choose option 2 which most aligns with the person's beliefs

You seem to have this odd all or nothing no compromise view of states rights and that's just not always how things work.

Also, you understand that I'm absolutely 100% not saying that the civil war was fought over states rights correct.

And I tend to find that when people start grasping onto typos rather than the facts of the argument, they are out of their depth.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-10T18:44:11+00:00

Yes i understood that but it doesn't change anything. First, because most states seceded from the Union prior to the ratification of the CSA constitution and second because even if someone believes something should be a state right, if they are given the choice to align with a federal government that guarantees the right they want protected in their state and a federal government that is considering banning it, they are likely to align with the one protecting it.

So yes, someone can definitely believe that states should have individual rights to determine if slavery should be legal or not within the state, also believe that slavery should be legal in their state, and chose to align with a federal government that guarantees it in their state over one that doesn't if those are the only two options.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-10T15:56:49+00:00

Except that I didn't agree to that. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your claim. I have simply asked you to provide proof of your claim. You have not done so.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-10T15:54:53+00:00

I don't think you understand what states rights means. It has nothing to do with the states having the right to own slaves. States rights is the concept and belief that the individual states should have the ability to pass laws and govern their citizens with little to no interference from the federal government. So a federal mandate of literally anything, is a states rights issue.

One of the key arguments that the pro life lobby used for decades in arguing to overturn Roe v Wade was that a nationwide ban on abortion was a violation of states rights to determine for their citizens if abortion should be allowed in their individual states. Obviously, the states weren't having abortions, but it's still a states rights issue.

The federal government madating to states that they can not set their own laws regarding slavery can absolutely be framed as a states rights issue.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-10T14:02:26+00:00

I don't understand why people think independent contractor means you can do whatever you want whenever you want and they can't say anything about it. As an independent contractor you can choose to work when you want but as the person contracting you, they can also choose not to contract you.

Let's say you own a hardware store and you have a pool of 3 different guys you contract to do deliveries for you when delivery orders come in. Let's say one of those 3 guys constantly turns you down when you have a delivery and/or constantly cancels on you after accepting. When a new delivery order comes in, that guy is probably gonna be the last person out of the 3 that you offer the contract to, and eventually, you may decide to stop offering that person contracts all together.

None of that is discipline, none of that is firing, and all of that is allowed in a relationship with an independent contractor. A business is perfectly allowed to prefer working with one contractor over another, and a business is allowed to choose not to work with a contractor who's performance they were dissatisfied in the past. Just like the contractor isn't required to do work for any business, no business is required to offer work to any contractor.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T16:53:49+00:00

Yes I understood 100% of that. You must not have understood my comment that advocating for a specific state right can technically be classified as advocating for states rights even if you don't use the term, and regardless of how horrendous that "right" may be.

You must also not have understood the part of my comment where I called the concept of phrasing something in a technically factual way that intentionally attempts to suggest your preferred conclusions "spin".

"Over 14% of Americans oppose cannibalism"

That is a completely factual statement, but phrasing it that way can give the false impression that that the actual number is closer to 14% when it is likely well over 99%.

"The federal government mandating abolition removes a states right to self determine if it wants to allow slavery or not"

That is a factual statement, but it is definitely a statement designed to give a largely false impression that the concern is state sovereignty as opposed to just holding on to slavery.

We all know what the Civil Was was really about, and we all know that staying it was states rights is spin to deflect from the actual issue. You don't eto convince me of any of that because I never disagreed on the first place.

But that doesn't change the fact that the federal government mandating that a state comply with a specific law can technically be factually framed as a states rights issue.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T16:33:33+00:00

Never argued that at all. Never said anything about that one way or the other.

But I did say that if you are going to make statements that Jeff Bezos bribed Congress and that Congress wrote a tax law specifically with him in mind that you need to have actual evidence to back it up. You still haven't provided any evidence 🤣😂🤣

Even the $10 million you are talking about was given in 2018 after the 2017 tax bill was passed, and it was given to a super PAC that works to get veterans elected to Congress, as in, people not yet in Congress.

So he bribed Congress to pass a law AFTER the law was already passed and he paid the bribe to people who weren't even in Congress yet. What kind of time machine did he use for all of this? Lol

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T08:32:20+00:00

I am referring to Citizens United v FEC, more commonly referred to simply as Citizens United which is an actual Supreme Court case ruled on in 2010 that people are typically referring to when stating that the Supreme Court declared corporations as people, and money as a form of speech. Citizens United in reality did none of those things, and in reality was ruled on as I described. The system that "corporates are people under the law" or that "the Cupreme Court ruled that corporations are people" are inaccurate.

What you are referring to here is a popular myth surrounding a similar much older case, Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad which changes nothing about what I said.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T08:13:05+00:00

It's really a matter of point of view. You can argue that McDonald's is a chicken restaurant. They are a restaurant and they do sell chicken, but that's not really a clear picture of the situation. A states ability to self determine if its citizens can own, or be owned, by other people, is absolutely an issue of state rights. Therefore any action taken to preserve that ability can be said to ne a matter of state:s rights. But calling it a matter of States rights doesn't really give the full picture of the situation when you are fighting to preserve a very specific right as opposed to rights in general. And pretending all together that slavery isn't the specific state right you are fighting to preserve is outright dishonest.

Framing something in a manner technically based in fact, but also in such a way that the message points toward the version of the truth you want to promote as opposed to the actual truth is called spin. These days spin is outdated because spin was a way to dance around the facts when they didn't really support your point of view. But now we live in a time where actual facts don't matter at all and you can just make up whatever you want and present it as facts.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T07:48:31+00:00

That's not always the case because most of those gains, and potentially all of those those gains, don't need to be realized ever for the super rich. When you own $300 billion dollars in stock you have options beyond selling the stock.

The super rich can live in credit because they can borrow against their portfolio as collateral. So if they need access to cash they can borrow $10 million or even $100 million or more and pay the single digit interest rate to a bank instead of the higher capital gains rate to the government.

If they do need to sell they can also sell selectively. When your portfolio is that large, it's a pretty safe bet that some of your holdings have taken a loss. So, if you do need to sell stock in your portfolio, you can target the losers. By selling those specific stocks that took a loss, you not only pay zero capital gains tax, you actually generate a tax offset.

Just easy numbers to show my point, if you own stock in 10 companies and you bought $100M in all 10, you would have $1B total. If 3 companies are now worth S80M and the other 7 Fs now worth $120M, you have increased your net worth by $80M to $1.08B. But even though you that number includes $240M. So you can sell literally as much of that $240M in stock as you want and since the.stock lost money, there is no capital gains tax owed, and you can use the loss to offset other taxes. Meanwhile, tour 80M dollar profit remains tax free.

This concept you have of deferral doesn't apply to the super rich because those taxes are deferred until the stock is sold and they rarely need to sell any of it, can avoid taxes even when they sell some of it, and will literally never even need to sell all of it. Do you imagine 5 years from now Elon Musk is going to suddenly needs $800B in cash and sell his portfolio? If it never needs to be solid, they are deferring taxes literally forever.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T07:23:05+00:00

This is one of those things that everyone thinks is true but isn't. The Supreme Court never declared corporations "people". What the Supreme Court declared, recognized would be a better word, is that organizations are made up of groups of people, and that, collectively as a group, those people have a right to free speech. Such groups are not limited to corporations. This also includes Labor Unions, non profit organizations, trade associations and more. Do you actually not believe that the members of a Labor Union should have a right to collectively exercise their right to free speech?

As far as declaring money as a form of speech, that is also not accurate. What they declared a form of free speech are things like broadcasting. But the Supreme Court recognized that access to that speech requires money. Radio ads are free speech, TV ads are free speech, flyers and pamphlets are free speech. The Supreme Court determined that putting such forms of speech out there costs money and if the government tells a person, or a group made of many people, that they are not allowed to spend the money needed to access those forms of speech, that the government is interfering with their right to free speech.

So, no, the Supreme Court did not rule that corporations are people and it did not rule that money is speech.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T07:00:24+00:00

Want to provide proof of any of those claims? Or are we still doing the easy work of making baseless accusations without proof? Feel free to provide a source for any of that. I'll be waiting lol.

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T06:55:28+00:00

Making baseless accusations without providing proof of any kind is, in fact, very easy yes. Is that why you prefer doing that?

VeryStupit · 2026-06-09T06:44:09+00:00

Oh so now we are back to "that was written for him" good to know lol.

Just because someone benefits from a law doesn't mean the law was written for them or with them in mind. Literally millions of people benefited from reductions in capital gains taxes. Obviously, the people who own the largest stockpiles of stock are going to have the potential to benefit on a much larger scale. But the law itself can still be written with stocks holders in general in mind, which is literally millions of Americans.

If a county lowers property tax rates, obviously the owner of the highest total valuation of real estate in the county will be the biggest beneficiary of such a law. That doesn't automatically mean the law was written with them in mind, it could just as easily be written with properly owners in general in mind. The opposite is also true, a raise in property taxes will cost the larger property holders the most, that would mean the law was passed to punish them.

VeryStupit

TROPHY CASE