4 ms·

Your line of thinking is flawed in multiple ways: 1) The federal government is not a business, it's a federal government. It shouldn't be looking at taxes as a

by jb775 6y ago

Your line of thinking is flawed in multiple ways: 1) The federal government is not a business, it's a federal government. It shouldn't be looking at taxes as a "cost-effective activity with a positive return on investment". 2) The entire concept of increasing the IRS's budget so they can collect more money is circular reasoning that leads us down a race-to-the-bottom scenario, but the "bottom" in this case is maximizing tax revenue to the point where everyone is squeezed dry....because the government apparently knows how to spend their money better. I.E. Increase the IRS budget so we can collect more taxes, so we can increase the IRS budget so we can collect more taxes, so we can... 3) For your final selfish argument, it's debatable to say it's better for you that others spend their money on taxes rather than less on taxes and spending it however they please. Any standard macroeconomics course will show you that people spend most of the money they have access to. In other words, they're injecting that money directly back into the economy, which typically adds ~10x in value to the economy as a whole, as it trickles through the supply chain. e.g. they buy a new couch: delivery guys get paid to deliver it, delivery company profits off the delivery, furniture store salesperson makes a commission, furniture store makes a profit, couch manufacturer makes a profit, company who produces couch cushions gets another order to replace the sold couch, couch cushion company orders more fabric and couch cushion stuffing.....

gamblor956 6y ago
The IRS collects more money by collecting the money people actually owe but did not pay. Taxes could be reduced by as much as 10% if the IRS was able to collect the underpaid taxes. I don't know why you're against that. For your final selfish argument, it's debatable to say it's better for you that others spend their money on taxes rather than less on taxes and spending it however they please. The IRS doesn't determine tax rates or tax laws, it just enforces them. And to note, all of the infrastructure that pays for the road the delivery company used the deliver the couch, and the forests which provided the lumber for the couch's frame, and the ease of contract which made all of these transactions...were all made possible by the taxes collected and paid by all of these people. Tax is a vital part of the economy. It's the price (fee) you pay for the government services that underpin everything else.
- jb775 6y ago
  Do you honestly think that if the IRS successfully collected more taxes that politicians would reduce taxes? And in my example I'd think that the lumber would come from privately owned land/lumber operations. Not sure what you mean by ease of contract. See my other comment in regards to taxes in general.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > Do you honestly think that if the IRS successfully collected more taxes that politicians would reduce taxes? These numbers on budget shortfalls, deficits, and CBO estimates that are thrown around every time a tax credit or additional tax is considered are very much affected by revenue collection. In SF where there's quite a bit of direct democracy, they were also thrown around to the public when considering several tax or tax-adjacent referenda such as the recent tax on high-revenue businesses or a few on the upcoming ballot, all of which come with their own budget estimates. I'm doubtful that all of this would have no effect the next time balancing the budgets is considered.
xmprt 6y ago
Taken to the logical extreme, we'll have privatized road services, privatized police and firefighters, and privatized postal services. This is an even worse race to the bottom where some areas just don't get served at all because it's no longer lucrative. Or people who live in areas that were previously served but no longer maintained have nothing to do because the company that was handling the roads is cutting costs. Their only option is to move but that's not easy. Some things just have to be handled by the government and I'd argue the US does a horrible job at this. USPS funding is going down and healthcare and insurance sucks. The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. They're just collecting taxes that are already owed. If the government wanted to increase taxes then they could already do that right now but they aren't because no one would vote for them. Increasing IRS funding would help the government collect taxes from the people who owe them which would lower the overall tax burden of the average tax payer (assuming they actually pay taxes). If it costs the IRS $100 to collect $1000 then that means that's $900 less that everyone else needs to pay.
- jb775 6y ago
  I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in the history of the world has more important things to prioritize than making the IRS more ruthless against the middle class. And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    > And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else. > The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation. So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.

by jb775 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

The IRS collects more money by collecting the money people actually owe but did not pay. Taxes could be reduced by as much as 10% if the IRS was able to collect the underpaid taxes. I don't know why you're against that. For your final selfish argument, it's debatable to say it's better for you that others spend their money on taxes rather than less on taxes and spending it however they please. The IRS doesn't determine tax rates or tax laws, it just enforces them. And to note, all of the infrastructure that pays for the road the delivery company used the deliver the couch, and the forests which provided the lumber for the couch's frame, and the ease of contract which made all of these transactions...were all made possible by the taxes collected and paid by all of these people. Tax is a vital part of the economy. It's the price (fee) you pay for the government services that underpin everything else.

jb775 6y ago
Do you honestly think that if the IRS successfully collected more taxes that politicians would reduce taxes? And in my example I'd think that the lumber would come from privately owned land/lumber operations. Not sure what you mean by ease of contract. See my other comment in regards to taxes in general.
- vinay427 6y ago
  > Do you honestly think that if the IRS successfully collected more taxes that politicians would reduce taxes? These numbers on budget shortfalls, deficits, and CBO estimates that are thrown around every time a tax credit or additional tax is considered are very much affected by revenue collection. In SF where there's quite a bit of direct democracy, they were also thrown around to the public when considering several tax or tax-adjacent referenda such as the recent tax on high-revenue businesses or a few on the upcoming ballot, all of which come with their own budget estimates. I'm doubtful that all of this would have no effect the next time balancing the budgets is considered.

xmprt 6y ago

Taken to the logical extreme, we'll have privatized road services, privatized police and firefighters, and privatized postal services. This is an even worse race to the bottom where some areas just don't get served at all because it's no longer lucrative. Or people who live in areas that were previously served but no longer maintained have nothing to do because the company that was handling the roads is cutting costs. Their only option is to move but that's not easy. Some things just have to be handled by the government and I'd argue the US does a horrible job at this. USPS funding is going down and healthcare and insurance sucks. The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. They're just collecting taxes that are already owed. If the government wanted to increase taxes then they could already do that right now but they aren't because no one would vote for them. Increasing IRS funding would help the government collect taxes from the people who owe them which would lower the overall tax burden of the average tax payer (assuming they actually pay taxes). If it costs the IRS $100 to collect $1000 then that means that's $900 less that everyone else needs to pay.

jb775 6y ago
I'm by no means against taxes, I completely agree they're rightfully used to fund roads/police/fire/etc. My primary argument is that the richest government in the history of the world has more important things to prioritize than making the IRS more ruthless against the middle class. And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
- vinay427 6y ago
  > And I'm saying that if they end up collecting more tax money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a net positive for society as a whole. Most of those tax benefits are reaped by big business, so in other words those benefits are reaped by the owners of those big businesses. This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else. > The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation. So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.