6 ms·

That doesn't follow, because there's a cost to the citizenry of being investigated. Also there's the increased ability of the IRS to abuse its power when you gi

That doesn't follow, because there's a cost to the citizenry of being investigated. Also there's the increased ability of the IRS to abuse its power when you give it a bigger budget.

therein 8y ago
You're right, it certainly doesn't scale to infinity. For instance shifting the entire military spending onto IRS would be unwise. Unless we are okay with living in an IRS police state. :)
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Well, there's also nonfinancial reasons to spend more, like the inherent goodness of bringing people to justice.
- SilasX 8y ago
  "You get $10 billion more in your budget this year. Go pull some taxes out of Newfoundland. We got your back."
neolefty 8y ago
"abuse its power" — that sounds more like a talking point than constructive comment.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  The IRS literally did admit to abusing its power in 2017 https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
diminoten 8y ago
The cost to citizenry aren't on the IRS's books so that's not relevant to them, and corruption also doesn't automatically follow increased funding.
belltaco 8y ago
There is also the savings from people committing less fraud because they see it's harder get away with it, e.g cases against people they know like friends, relatives, coworkers.
- DenisM 8y ago
  Which is pretty much the foundation of law enforcement - make the consequences apparent before the crime happened.
munk-a 8y ago
Just to clarify, where in this thread was increasing it's budget discussed? The statement above pertains to current spending levels and it might be that the next dollar of budget put into the IRS yields $.90, but currently the IRS is assuring laws are obeyed while netting a gain to the US government. The only justification of cutting their balance (from a purely profit driven angle) is if the suspicion is that the first half of the budget to the IRS pays $2.40 per dollar and the second half pays $0 (or some similar less than dollar ratio), but this seems like a quite straight forward win.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The article is about the IRS being dangerously underfunded.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  The thing is, even if you spend $1.00 to bring in $1.01, you're still bringing in money with 1% efficiency. If you didn't care about fairness and justice at all, that would be horrible economics.
avs733 8y ago
So do people who are found innocent of other crimes. Would it solve your concern to say that anyone found innocent of a government cause of action could claim costs? I've never understood why they can't frankly.
jonathankoren 8y ago
You could say this about any law enforcement agency.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
That danger does exist, but I do not believe what are anywhere near that point, given how dramatically underfunded they are.
- datavirtue 8y ago
  Cut the hyperbole, there is nothing dangerous about underfunding the IRS. Overfunding the military, that's another story.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    What's dangerous about it is massive budget shortfalls, not to mention unfairness, as taxes become optional for the very wealthy. > The result is huge losses for the government. Business owners don’t pay $125 billion in taxes each year that they owe, according to I.R.S. estimates. That’s enough to fund the Departments of State, Energy and Homeland Security, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration tossed in for good measure. Unlike wage earners who have their income separately reported to the I.R.S., business owners are often on the honor system.
    - datavirtue 8y ago
      Wealthy will never pay tax. Owners do not pay tax, the people who buy thier products pay the taxes which are built into profit models. If it was a question of fairness everyone would be the owner. Governments should spend only what they can collect. They can't face budget shortfalls unless they are lending in the hopes that taxes flow as they are. States are still trying to recover from borrowing against tax revenue in the 90s.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I'm not being hyperbolic. And if they are unable to do their jobs, that is quite dangerous, because then we will no longer have revenues to operate as a country.

That doesn't follow, because there's a cost to the citizenry of being investigated. Also there's the increased ability of the IRS to abuse its power when you give it a bigger budget.

therein 8y ago

You're right, it certainly doesn't scale to infinity. For instance shifting the entire military spending onto IRS would be unwise. Unless we are okay with living in an IRS police state. :)

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Well, there's also nonfinancial reasons to spend more, like the inherent goodness of bringing people to justice.
SilasX 8y ago
"You get $10 billion more in your budget this year. Go pull some taxes out of Newfoundland. We got your back."

neolefty 8y ago

"abuse its power" — that sounds more like a talking point than constructive comment.

creaghpatr 8y ago
The IRS literally did admit to abusing its power in 2017 https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

diminoten 8y ago

The cost to citizenry aren't on the IRS's books so that's not relevant to them, and corruption also doesn't automatically follow increased funding.

belltaco 8y ago

There is also the savings from people committing less fraud because they see it's harder get away with it, e.g cases against people they know like friends, relatives, coworkers.

DenisM 8y ago
Which is pretty much the foundation of law enforcement - make the consequences apparent before the crime happened.

munk-a 8y ago

Just to clarify, where in this thread was increasing it's budget discussed? The statement above pertains to current spending levels and it might be that the next dollar of budget put into the IRS yields $.90, but currently the IRS is assuring laws are obeyed while netting a gain to the US government. The only justification of cutting their balance (from a purely profit driven angle) is if the suspicion is that the first half of the budget to the IRS pays $2.40 per dollar and the second half pays $0 (or some similar less than dollar ratio), but this seems like a quite straight forward win.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
The article is about the IRS being dangerously underfunded.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
The thing is, even if you spend $1.00 to bring in $1.01, you're still bringing in money with 1% efficiency. If you didn't care about fairness and justice at all, that would be horrible economics.

avs733 8y ago

So do people who are found innocent of other crimes. Would it solve your concern to say that anyone found innocent of a government cause of action could claim costs? I've never understood why they can't frankly.

jonathankoren 8y ago

You could say this about any law enforcement agency.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

That danger does exist, but I do not believe what are anywhere near that point, given how dramatically underfunded they are.

datavirtue 8y ago
Cut the hyperbole, there is nothing dangerous about underfunding the IRS. Overfunding the military, that's another story.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  What's dangerous about it is massive budget shortfalls, not to mention unfairness, as taxes become optional for the very wealthy. > The result is huge losses for the government. Business owners don’t pay $125 billion in taxes each year that they owe, according to I.R.S. estimates. That’s enough to fund the Departments of State, Energy and Homeland Security, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration tossed in for good measure. Unlike wage earners who have their income separately reported to the I.R.S., business owners are often on the honor system.
  - datavirtue 8y ago
    Wealthy will never pay tax. Owners do not pay tax, the people who buy thier products pay the taxes which are built into profit models. If it was a question of fairness everyone would be the owner. Governments should spend only what they can collect. They can't face budget shortfalls unless they are lending in the hopes that taxes flow as they are. States are still trying to recover from borrowing against tax revenue in the 90s.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I'm not being hyperbolic. And if they are unable to do their jobs, that is quite dangerous, because then we will no longer have revenues to operate as a country.