What Is Your Opinion About 26,000 IRS Employees Being Laid Off?

[Billlewis]

This federal agency has swelled substantially in recent years, in terms of its size.

[Syntosi]

IRS. The Internal Revenue Service. Responsible for both policing the rich so that they pay their taxes which in turn provides billions of additional reclaimed taxes for the federal budget. Objectively the single greatest investment dollar for dollar when considering the return that the USA does.

It makes perfect sense that Trump wants to destroy the one group that actually makes rich people pay taxes rather than expand it by 10 times for 10 times the profit since the IRS are still not at "capacity" AKA they could reclaim even more taxes if they were fully funded and staffed.

[Billlewis]

Here's another dimestore economist -- ^^^ -- who only sees two groups -- rich and poor. No middle class. Yep, he's a Democrat, alright.

[Syntosi]

... Yeah.. Obviously.. I was not talking about the common class distinctions here so why on earth would I use that language or those definitions?

I thought this was obvious from context but do I have to dumb down my language for you?

[Billlewis]

You don't need to dumb it down any further; you're doing a great job as it is.

[Syntosi]

Then why did you not understand what I wrote and reached the completely wrong conclusions?

[Dongie]

They don't force the rich to pay up, suckered! They force the ones who don't have it to forfeit their property! The politicians write the laws. You don't see a rich person going to jail when they can pay.

[Avicenna]

@Dongie: A professor at a law school’s tax clinic told me they had local people coming to them for help because the IRS was all over them for amounts as little as $200.

Unfortunately, Syntosi’s claim isn’t based on reality (isn’t that always the case!):

www.kiplinger.com/.../who-does-the-irs-audit-most

And 87k additional agents certainly weren’t needed to audit the wealthiest filers, who have the resources and political influence in the Democratic Party to get the IRS to back off.

[Dongie]

Oh, you're so right @Avicenna.

My ex-brother-in-law had to go through an audit. He had 3 big rigs with two hired drivers, a trucker all his adult life. He said the guy was a ghoul. He sat at his kitchen table and lambasted the guy. Got personal about the fact that it took a miserable SOB to work for the IRS. Brother Billy got real deep into the guy's head. I believe it was over about 45k. Billy wrote him a check and calmly told him to go to hell.

[Dongie]

How did I do that? Shit!!

[Syntosi]

@Dongie I am 100% for taking the property of rich people for not paying taxes. Jailing them would also be a bonus.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna Arguing that the rich are dodging the IRS through political influence and therefore the IRS should be cut is not the thundering argument you think it is. Especially since I am on the side that wants to remove those protections and unleash the full fury of the IRS onto the rich.

Point remains though. The IRS is profitable and they do go after the rich. Furthermore, if we are talking about the tax return recovered by the IRS then busting a single rich person achieves more profit than pretty much any number of poor people. Bringing up that the IRS focuses slightly more on auditing lower income is once again, not the argument you think it is.

[Dongie]

What have you against successful people? Is it simple jealousy? It's nothing to be proud of. There are some who consider you wealthy. Would you like to be subject to their wrath simply because you worked harder than they?

[Syntosi]

@Dongie I consider them no more successful than I would a king or noble born into wealth and power and I am equally not impressed nor jealous.

Why are you jealous of rich people and decide that you should be their chosen keyboard warrior in shining armor?

[Dongie]

Hehe, how are you with those in poverty? Does your heart cry from them? Why, God makes the rich and the poor. What is it to me if a guy over there has money to burn? I don't dwell on what others have. It's not my concern or business. If someone is hungry I feed them whether they be rich or poor. It's very simple.

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Liar. You dont give a damn about the plights of the starving and those in need.

But for funsies, lets say you do. I am a pragmatist. I see a problem, I device a solution. You want to feed the hungry, be they rich or poor? I can help you with that. Just tax the rich and use that money to finance a federal program that provides basic food for any citizen. Maybe we could call it Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? This way the rich could even feel like they are being useful for once.

[Avicenna]

Can you show us, using IRS data, how much unpaid taxes are recovered by income quintile?

See, the problem is that your theoretical claims MAY not be backed up in reality:

www.forbes.com/.../

"The June 20, 2024 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration came as a shock to many. The TIGTA report explained that to meet an audit quota set in 2020, the IRS started examining tax returns that fit a designated profile of "high income" taxpayers, even if these returns did not show typical signs of irregularities. High-income taxpayers were defined as those with a total positive income of $10 million or more. As a result of trying to reach the quota directive, TIGTA reports that the drop in efficiency at the IRS was so steep that the agency has now ceased compliance with this directive and changed its course."

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna First of all, I am perfectly fine with rich people being audited without displaying irregular financial behavior. They should be audited as a matter of course since they represent a significant part of the national economy and by extension, tax income.

As for links, here is a link to an article from the IRS where they through Bidens inflation reduction act launched initiatives that reclaimed a bunch of money from people who earned at least 400,000 dollars according to third party information.
www.irs.gov/.../us-department-of-the-treasury-irs-announce-1-point-3-billion-recovered-from-high-income-high-wealth-individuals-under-inflation-reduction-act-initiatives

We also have this link, and I quote: "While the IRS does not estimate the distribution of the tax gap by taxpayers’ income levels,
research has found that those with high incomes are responsible for most misreported income.
Johns and Slemrod (2010) studied the income distribution of unpaid taxes using NRP audits from
2001. They found that, on average, the highest-income 5% of households were responsible for
51% of all misreported adjusted gross income."
www.congress.gov/.../R47858.2.pdf

But yeah, as I said before, I think that IRS should perform audits on the richest people at all times. I literally dont see why not.

[Avicenna]

I’ll take a further look at that; however, the estimated gap between what is owed and paid dwarfs that $1.3 billion immensely (note it was over $600 billion three years ago):

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/irs-the-tax-gap

So clearly something needs to be done differently. Is what’s really need a simplified tax system? I’d suggest that is part of it.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna A simplified tax system is just a tax increase on the poor. What is required is not a change in the tax system but the enforcement of said tax system irrespective of what that system is. If someone wants to dodge taxes then it won't matter if its the current system or if its a "simplified tax system", they will dodge it regardless.

If you want to recover the tax gap then you need someone to go out there and bust some heads. That is literally the job of the IRS and what they SHOULD be doing if the Republicans were not crippling them all the time.

As you aptly pointed out, there are at least hundreds of billions of dollars just waiting for the Federal government to reclaim if they just got their hands out of their asses to do it. The IRS needs to expand and they need to become far more vicious and tyrannical.

[Avicenna]

Uh, enforcement is a lot easier in a simplified system. And there’s no reason to think it’s an increase on the poor when simplifying the system means removing loopholes, deductions and credits that don’t have anything to do with lower income taxpayers. And there’s no reason to think it’s easier or as easy to dodge taxes in a simpler system. Compliance is higher in a simpler system, and easier to enforce.

You clearly want to use the IRS to destroy people, and obviously that will be people who are republicans or other people you don’t like. Your open totalitarianism is scary, especially when juxtaposed with my suggestion for making compliance and enforcement easier.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna I dont give a fuck if its "easier", we are not hiring children for the IRS. They can handle some complicity in their work. They are supposed to be good at their job.

And yes, a simplified tax system is an increase in taxes for the poor. That is literally the whole purpose of that system, to "simplify" the system by taking away all the small ways that the government taxes specifically the rich and keep the basic simple ways that they tax the poor. And obviously, the loopholes will not go away either so you can take that hope of yours and drown it in the nearest bathtub as well.

And yes. I am completely fine with the IRS destroying people if they fuck around with their taxes. That sounds perfectly good to me.

[Dongie]

Symposium, why don't you just shut the fuck up!

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Boohoo

[Dongie]

YEEE-Haw!!

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Go cry somewhere else, its unsightly to watch.

[Dongie]

😅 Yeah, I'll get right on it! Meanwhile, why don't you go console those 26,000 well-hated crooks!!

[Syntosi]

@Dongie You mean those 26,000 crooks that earned USA billions of dollars if not trillions from scummy tax evaders? How unpatriotic can one person get? Have you no shame?

[Dongie]

You do know of more than just this little fact about them, don't you? I'm saying to ya' boy, do you know how they treat people? Not after evading at the start of an audit either.

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Hahaha! Of course I know. The point is, it does not matter. For 1.3 billion, in a single initiative, they can behave very poorly and still be a net positive for the country.

What is it you people like to say? Facts over feelings? Get over yourself kid.

[Dongie]

To what do you refer calling me you people

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Idiots. The word you are looking for are idiots.

[Avicenna]

Syntosi, you’re insane and don’t know what you’re talking about. Bellowing about $1.3 billion, which is around 0.3% of one years tax gap, shows you’re clueless. Claiming they recovered trillions shows you’re totally delusional.

And if you want yo tax the rich more, the way to do it isn’t the current system, which we can tell doesn’t work if you look at effective tax rates by income quintiles or quartiles (the effective tax rate is the rate that people actually pay).

As an accountant, I can tell you that it’s not always clear how much a taxpayer owes (which is why we gave a Tax Court).

And is destroying people really necessary? Just charge them penalties and interest, which are easier to assess in a simpler system and IRS resources are used more efficiently.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna Again, I dont know how many times I have to repeat myself. The 1.3 billion is not the entire profit from the IRS, its literally just one initiative they had going after a handful of rich people through a single act passed by Biden. It is an example, nothing more.

Also, you yourself pointed out that there is several hundred billion dollars in tax gap. Recover that for two years in a row and you got more than a trillion and those IRS employees probably also were employed for more than a year to boot.

As for taxing the rich, its not the tax system that is the problem. Its the enforcement. Also, I dont think its a good idea to punish rich people with fines. That just makes it legal to break the law if you can pay for it. At some point up the income bracket there must be consequences to rule-breaking that you can't avoid by simply paying for it.

I would love to see rich people regularly go to jail for failing to pay taxes rather than get slapped on the wrist and have to repay a fraction of the money that they stole from the tax payers by not paying their fair share.

And once again, simplifying taxes is just a way to increase the tax-burden on the poor. First of all, if taxes are simple then you can be very strategic in circumventing them since simple systems are easy to exploit. Furthermore, a lot of the complexity in our current tax system is there to protect the poor and attempting to target taxes against the rich. Simplifying taxes therefore means that poor people also gets hit by taxes intended for the rich only.

For someone who claims to be an accountant you dont appear to notice how problematic this is on a fundamental level.

[Dongie]

Huh!! I'm appalled! "Liar, IDIOT"!!
And here I've found the solution to our 'discussion'.

Firstly, you are to cease immediately all name calling you little prick!

So now I give zee solution. You are a socialist. Therefore you are all for the strong arm government being down the people's throats! You see yourself as a member of the hierarchy where all is well and "we live like kings"!! This should have been reading with zee French accent! You may go now, boy!

[Syntosi]

@Dongie Shoo

[Avicenna]

Syntosi, the tax gap isn’t the amount they recover- it’s what they don’t recover, and no one expects them to come close to recovering it,

I have some friends who work for the federal government who I’m visiting right now, so I’ll see if I can find just how productive they are in recovering what’s fallen into the tax gap.

That said, as I pointed out, recovery is easier and they’d be more productive doing audits in a simpler system.

You’re mistaken- the real complexity in the system isn’t things like the Additional Child Tax Credit that the poor and middle class benefit from.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna It is the amount they CAN recover and realistically that is probably not even the full amount. And yes, I do expect them to come close to recovering that amount. Furthermore, I think the IRS budget should be measured against the gap since if you are investing 50 billion more into the IRS to recover 100 billion then that is just pure profit.

To put that into context, Trumps current budget has the IRS budget at around 9 billion. In other words, from my point of view it would be a complete win if you increased the IRS budget to 600 billion dollars to recover 700+ billion dollars for a neat 100 billion dollar profit that we dont get today.

Any suggestion that we should cut the IRS when there is literally this mountain of potential income that we can get is just silly even if that would have to come with a large increase in funding or even legislative change.

As for it being easier in a simpler system? Dont care. These people are supposed to be professionals. The current system should be well within their capabilities to enforce without having to lower the difficulty level to baby mode. I also dont really care about how efficient they are since again, free money, they literally finance themselves. It would be nice if they could do more with less but I would settle for them just doing their job in the first place.

As for the complexity that the rich want to remove, it would be things such as tax credits or very specific taxes such as taxing yachts or whatever. Meanwhile they want to keep taxes that hit the poor such as putting in flat tax rates or regressive taxation such as commodity taxes or property taxes. Preferably easy things where you can later find loopholes like for example avoiding property taxes by renting property or whatever.

[Avicenna]

You clearly don’t know much about the tax code or the complexities of valuing some things and resolving some audit cases. Property taxes are a local tax, not under the purview of the IRS. Commodity taxes also add to the complexity of any system of taxation. Taxes on yachts can be avoided by simply not having one.

And renters pay property taxes indirectly. It’s not a „loophole“, although it’s usually a business decision.

It’s not realistic to claim the tax gap can be closed or even exceeded, even with more agents. The law of diminishing returns will see to that, especially given that you want to hire tons more agents and massively expand the IRS, which will be overstaffed.

Furthermore, your budget doesn’t take things like future pensions into account.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna I know enough about the tax code to know what a "simplified tax code" would cut and whom it would benefit. Do not insult my intelligence by trying to convince me otherwise. This is doubly obvious to everyone considering who the authors and supporters of said "simplified tax code" are AKA large corporations and rich people.

And sure, lets say for the sake of argument that the IRS was not a giant cash cow, which it is, but it merely investigates and prosecutes criminals. It would still be fucking worth it and that tax gap indicates that they have a lot more work to do which they obviously need more manpower and resources to handle than they have today.

[Avicenna]

You really are clueless and you have tunnel vision. How could you possibly know what the effects of a simplified tax code be without knowing the details?

It’s basic tax accounting to know a simpler system is harder to game and easier to audit.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna This is not a new suggestion and I looked this up like a decade ago. Same scam back then. You are running with an old playbook. Dont blame me for dismissing you without a care.

And no, simple rules means more loopholes. For example, USA literally had to employ a supreme court to argue day and night over the same simple old words written in the constitution. Why? Because the world is complicated. Simple solutions generally does not work for complicated problems.

[kavakava]

Billy,

When Biden proposed to hire 87, 000 IRS agents, did you ever get a peek at the job description? If you wanted to apply for that job, you would have to be willing to carry a gun and be willing to shoot to kill. Hmm. Me thinks this wasn't about IRS agents it was about having a private military at his disposal. Obama was also in favor of having his own private military.

[Billlewis]

Oh, yeah it's only a problem if the abuse is inflicted by someone who's not a liberal. People from the U. K. hate Trump, because they're jealous that their own country is going down the toilet, like ours would have if Skamala had been elected. That's why they hate Trump and us. Sanctimonious preaching... lol

[kavakava]

Just look at the pink idiot on here that compared IRS agents to factory workers. 😭😭😭😭
You're right, this is not logic this is jealousy.

[Billlewis]

Exactly. You've got these statist ideologues on that side of the pond whom, 80 years after WWII ended, still haven't gotten over it, just like the American libs can't get past slavery or Jim Crow, etc. News flash -- the solution to past racism is not to try and balance the books by directing racism against the great-great-great-great grandchildren of those long dead and gone previous generations.

[purplepoppy]

That's 26000 families that will suffer. If it was 26000 from a factory closing people would be saying it's a sad thing so why is it different when offices close? Why do so many rejoice? That's 26000 who'll need welfare, 26000 and families who may need to up sticks and move to find work. People forget there's human beings behind the numbers.

[Billlewis]

Nope. The Trump administration is giving them generous buyouts and retirement packages. You can check it out on 'Town Hall'. They ran the article I'm basing this on. I just can't post a link from this phone.

[Billlewis]

Also, the IRS, under both Obama and Biden, has been used to harass and intimidate non liberal organizations and people for years, so this is a win for us.

[purplepoppy]

Everything's about getting one over the other side with you people isn't it

[Amur8711]

Because thats Government, Government doesn't need to be as large as ours is, bigger it gets the more taxing it is on the population. Not like they can't get new jobs. I can't work two full time jobs to support them and myself.

[Billlewis]

I don't know whom you're referring to.

[Jennz6]

Good to know, I don’t file a tax return but I know plenty of folks that have had the IRS harassing them

[Filthy_Immigrant]

I once heard a quote about the IRS and that is "you either work for them or become their victim"

maybe now with more "victims" they will be outnumbered and become the new victims themselves

[BCRanger10]

Such a fascist authoritarian abuse of power. Decreasing the size and influence of the government and stuff.

[Fireguy17]

A good start.
Its a low percentage of the total number.

[Surely]

There goes Biden’s job numbers! Since most of the jobs that he takes credit for. He created.

[XXblack88]

Just taking a guess. Probably not doing their job right or there too mine people in the IRS. but I honestly don't know

[Billlewis]

It's a combination of both. The implication of hiring tens of thousands of IRS agents, like the 150,000 to 180,000 new recruits that were added after 'AbominationCare' was passed is unspoken but clear: confiscatory governmental future policy.

[onedarkcloud]

And to think Biden wanted to add 89 ,000 more to the IRS to an already compromised dept

[RavVid]

Normal cycle. The Left higher more public servants and the conservatives come in and sacks. a large number/

[Dongie]

Its a fair start. They need to double it over the next week then start a series featuring the out of work tax collectors losing THEIR cars, homes and dancing with swisscide!

[fonduegirl]

I love your brainy questions

[Billlewis]

Aww... thanks so much;)

[robocop666]

smaller government. However I am not from America.

[Syntosi]

You do realize that the IRS produces a profit right? And additionally, that they make their money by busting the rich for failing to pay their taxes. Do you really want a smaller government if it means lower income and that the rich gets to scam the system even harder?

[robocop666]

@Syntosi wow I did not know that

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: the overwhelmingly majority of government spending is not for the IRS, meaning you can cut back a lot of overall government spending without reducing IRS enforcement. The high level of government spending also raises the costs of government in much greater amounts, e. g, the increased payments on government debt from
additional spending, and interest on the national debt is already much greater than the tax gap.

Pretending the IRS only targets the rich is dishonest.

[Avicenna]

Since you don’t think complexity matters:

breznikar.com/.../1781

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna Wtf are you talking about? The interest of the debt is much greater than the tax gap so we should say "no" to free money? Actually, scratch that, we should fire 26,000 IRS employees to increase the tax gap and ensure we get even less money.

But at this point I have to start question if I have been too kind to your position. The funding for the IRS is not just a literal goldmine where every dollar spend gives a higher return, after all, that tax gap is not just "free money". Its OUR money that criminals have stolen from us. It is money that we SHOULD have but that we need the "financial police" AKA the IRS to go out and take back from the criminals.

I want you to sit here, right now, and tell me that you rather cut the police and let the criminals go if it costed you money to employ the police. Nevermind the fact that the IRS is actually profitable, lets pretend that they were not. Tell me to my face that you think that we should not arrest and prosecute criminals that are defrauding the nation.

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: Careful with those strawmen.

It’s not free money, that’s the problem. Going after the wealthy in a complex system is pretty labor intensive. And you don’t get a bunch of money from everyone that gets audited.

Calling the IRS profitable is a joke- it’s a government agency, not a private business (I doubt you’d call the police “loss making”). And you stubbornly refuse to even countenance a simpler system where it would be less expensive and less labor intensive to audit all top earners and non filers.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna Wait, you dont think government agencies or programs can make money? Its not even that rare. The IRS literally collects taxes for example. Or how about the postal service which was profitable until the Republicans decided that they had to pay decades ahead on retirement and such for no other reason than to pretend that its unprofitable and so they got an excuse to privatize it.

And lets talk a moment about strawmen argument. There is a world of difference between simplifying the tax code and the very bespoke "simplified tax system" that the Republicans (and by extension, you) have been suggesting. But even if we talk about simplifying the tax code in general, I still dont agree with it. Taxes are complicated for a reason. We are trying to apply a very simple concept to a very complicated reality and having to modify and adjust it so that it will be fit for purpose.

The current complexity in the tax code is the result of decades of trial and error, trying to get taxes to work just right. Scrapping all that is just asking to restart the same process which will lead to a similar result. The tax code is complicated because it has to be and it is not actually a problem. Get over yourself.

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: LOL, the complexity is due to a dysfunctional political system and special
Interests getting favors.

Postal service profitable? You really are nuts. And it’s , wait for it……. a monopoly! The last time it could be said to have been profitable from mail delivery was around 20 years ago. How many businesses do you know lose money for 20 years without shareholders taking action?

The IRS is one spoke in the wheel and depends on other government agencies. It’s more akin to a billing department in a private business. Can a billing department be a standalone company? No. And neither is the IRS, which is also subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna So childish. No, the complexity is not because of dysfunctional political systems or special interests getting favors. It is because reality is complicated and you need to keep "patching" things up so that it continues to function. Every patch introduces more complexity. Every new technology, every new commodity, every new service, every new trade agreement with a foreign nation introduces more and more complexity.

Cars invented? Great, now we need to build road infrastructure and services and we need more taxes to pay for it. More complexity.

Postal service? More complexity. Phone lines? More complexity. Internet? More complexity. Electric cars? More complexity. Airplanes? More complexity. The rich found a new loophole? More complexity.

Every time you find that your NAIVE simple tax code to be lacking you need to add exceptions and additions to patch it into working as we intended for it.

And yes, the Postal service is inherently profitable. Why? Because the private sector can't do what they do. They can't perform the last-mile delivery and the coverage that the Postal service has. Why? Because they are capitalist corporations and they are more concerned with going for the low-hanging fruit. They want to do the deliveries that they can profit the most from, not the ones that brings a single letter to a random cabin in the middle of the woods. You will have private corporations using AI powered drones with jet engines delivering packages in the year 3000 before they get around to delivering a simple letter to a house in the middle of nowhere.

And the only reason the postal service has lost money in recent history is because of Republican sabotage. Shame on you.

[Avicenna]

@Syntosi: Shame on you for lying through your teeth.

Private services deliver packages, which is more difficult than delivering first class mail as a monopoly, to everywhere. They could do first class mail as well if it were profitable, but as I explained, it’s not at current volumes even fur the monopoly.

No one in their right mind thinks a more complex system is better except tax accountants and tax lawyers. You’re so clueless about that it’s funny.

Roads existed long before cars (as did taxes) and cars were a huge productivity improvement. What you term complexity there in a physical system is in no way analogous to the unnecessary complexity of a tax system, whose job is raising needed revenue.

You still have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Syntosi]

@Avicenna No. Private delivery companies regularly avoid doing last mile deliveries and regularly employ the postal service to do that part for them. And as you artfully brought into the conversation, its all about the profitability. Not every mailing route that the postal service has is profitable. They are providing a public service after all, not trying to make money.

This is why private corporations has not begun to compete with the postal service over final mile delivery. While overall the postal service is profitable, many routes and sectors inside it are not and the profitability is not good enough to tempt private investment. In other words, private industry can't do what the postal service is currently doing. There is simply no profit motive for it.

And no. "roads" as we know them did not exist before cars nor did railways before trains or ports before boats. Every new innovation twists and changes our society in unpredictable ways that simplistic rules can't follow.

Also, even if a certain technology such as cars is ultimately profitable, that does not mean that using general taxation to provide specific services such as roads to cars will be a clean solution. That essentially creates a scenario where cars are being subsidized by whatever other area that you are taxing.

As a result, the more you use cars compared to other people, the more you personally benefit from this subsidy. People will begin using cars beyond the point where it is efficient because the cost-benefit is skewed since cars are not taxed and yet consume public resources. And this is just a basic example of how your simple tax code is stupid and how it can be exploited.

[DrPepper12]

They should be hiring 100K and go after corps & elites. Stupid MAGAs

[Dongie]

Would that enrich your life? Finding satisfaction in the financial destruction of others?

[DrPepper12]

No. Progressive taxation. Real audits.

[DonaldDarko]

Lay off some more. A lot more.

[Snakeyes7]

Countless more to go.

[chrissykerdock]

very glad

[Sal_Monella]

Is that all?

[Amur8711]

Fantasy!