5 ms·

IRS has already collected more than $500M in delinquent millionaire back taxes

23 points by MilnerRoute 3y ago

PopAlongKid 3y ago
One of the best, most cost-effective things they could do is publish a list of the top, say, 5,000 tax delinquents, similar to California[0] (which gets some good results). edit: this would require a change to the law, not something IRS can do on its own [0]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/top-500-past-due-balances/index.html https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/top-500-past-due-b...
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [dead]
exabrial 3y ago
How about we just spend less? This is like watching an alcoholic go around and collect drinks from people he bought shots for.
- autotune 3y ago
  The only place immune to inflation here is McDonald's.
  - avmich 3y ago
    Because of BigMac index?
- bdcravens 3y ago
  The two aren't mutually exclusive. Your example is flawed in the sense that for an alcoholic, no amount of drinks are healthy. Taxation and spending aren't inherently bad, wasteful spending is.
  - Gormo 3y ago
    > Taxation and spending aren't inherently bad I mean, they kind of are. Tax-and-spend policies inherently centralize and politicize decision making for matters that are better off in the decentralized hands of civil society, and create perverse incentives that usually lead to both waste and bad policy. For some questions, there might not be viable alternatives, so we might be stuck with tax-and-spend, but that doesn't make its own defects disappear, it just means we need to deal with those defects.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  You'd have to clear that with the lobbyists that, every year, secure billions in subsidies for their corporate masters with 14 Scrooge McDuck piles of money already, while poor kids go without meals in schools. What a Snidely Whiplash level timeline I find myself in.
  - mbrumlow 3y ago
    Lobbyist are not in power, our elected officials are. I think parent id specifically asking for our elected officials to stop pandering to lobbyists along with a whole other flow of bad behaviors.
    - joshstrange 3y ago
      > Lobbyist are not in power, our elected officials are. I don't think I'd agree with that statement at all. Ostensibly our elected officials are in power but in reality it sure doesn't seem that way (with a handful of exceptions). You can't pump all that money into politics and expect it to have no effect. And while "most money spent" != "won election" it sure helps a lot, as in you need money to run a successful campaign so you are going to be beholden to someone. Even purest of heart are going to be at least slightly biased and I seriously doubt I'd consider the majority of elected officials to fall into the category of "people with pure hearts". The incentives are just not there to set ourselves up for success.
    - sonicanatidae 3y ago
      Officials are not in power, Money is in power.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Unfortunately, calls to "spend less" usually end up serving as a fig leaf over a political agenda that includes massive spending from the Federal Reserve in the form of ZIRP. The focus on "spending" has been sneakily construed to ignore the Federal Reserve, and direct the focus at legislative/executive programs trying to assuage ZIRP's economic damage. For example we'd need far less "affordable housing" assistance if the government hadn't spend decades pumping up the housing market as a Potemkin investment. Furthermore, spending more or less doesn't really have any bearing on the distribution of who taxes are collected from. Your every day W-2 worker is under the thumb of a whole slew of deductions being prohibited to them, plus surveillance databases that make their finances completely legible. So it's a bit disingenuous to imply that tax non-compliance by those already receiving preferential treatment represents some higher ideal rather than just more corruption.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  The deficit jumped to almost 15% in 2020 with the pandemic. The deficit has returned to normal 5-6% of GDP. 5% is sustainable for forever as long as GDP keeps growing faster. It has been in that range for fifty years except for recessions and Clinton surplus. Also, the government is now paying for the retirement of the boomers. We could increase taxes to pay for the increase. Or we could borrow it, changing debt to Social Security fund to debt to everyone. Or we could slash spending for everything else.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Alternatively we could hire Trump to reprise his "president" character for a TV show, so he resumes encouraging the boomers to get Covid and now RSV.
  - PopAlongKid 3y ago
    > the government is now paying for the retirement of the boomers. Are there any facts to back up this extraordinary claim? It might help if you explain your definition of "paying for retirement".
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      What is extraordinary about the government paying Social Security and Medicare for the boomers, the second largest cohort in history, who are currently retiring? Up until 2021, Social Security income matched outlays, but the outlays have increased and will keep increasing. Social Security is now drawing from the trust fund; it is small now but will get worse. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59340 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59340
      - PopAlongKid 3y ago
        >government paying Social Security and Medicare for the boomers, Is that your definition of paying for retirement? Also, as a side note, recipients of Medicare pay Medicare premiums.
- nxobject 3y ago
  Truth be told, I'd rather we give enforcing the equally-applied rule of law a shot first.
  - exabrial 3y ago
    I'd be willing to compromise on that, with the provision we roll it out at the top first; starting with Senators/Reps
    - nxobject 3y ago
      That's a deal! Wasteful spending, personal profit, and congressional privilege all go together hand in hand.
- MilnerRoute 3y ago
  So in this scenario, "people he bought shots for" are the solar panel vendors?
timcavel 3y ago
[dead]
devaiops9001 3y ago
Wow. Does this mean they can fix climate change now?

23 points by MilnerRoute 3y ago

One of the best, most cost-effective things they could do is publish a list of the top, say, 5,000 tax delinquents, similar to California[0] (which gets some good results). edit: this would require a change to the law, not something IRS can do on its own [0]https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/top-500-past-due-balances/index.html https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/top-500-past-due-b...

PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]

exabrial 3y ago

How about we just spend less? This is like watching an alcoholic go around and collect drinks from people he bought shots for.

autotune 3y ago
The only place immune to inflation here is McDonald's.
- avmich 3y ago
  Because of BigMac index?
bdcravens 3y ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Your example is flawed in the sense that for an alcoholic, no amount of drinks are healthy. Taxation and spending aren't inherently bad, wasteful spending is.
- Gormo 3y ago
  > Taxation and spending aren't inherently bad I mean, they kind of are. Tax-and-spend policies inherently centralize and politicize decision making for matters that are better off in the decentralized hands of civil society, and create perverse incentives that usually lead to both waste and bad policy. For some questions, there might not be viable alternatives, so we might be stuck with tax-and-spend, but that doesn't make its own defects disappear, it just means we need to deal with those defects.
sonicanatidae 3y ago
You'd have to clear that with the lobbyists that, every year, secure billions in subsidies for their corporate masters with 14 Scrooge McDuck piles of money already, while poor kids go without meals in schools. What a Snidely Whiplash level timeline I find myself in.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  Lobbyist are not in power, our elected officials are. I think parent id specifically asking for our elected officials to stop pandering to lobbyists along with a whole other flow of bad behaviors.
  - joshstrange 3y ago
    > Lobbyist are not in power, our elected officials are. I don't think I'd agree with that statement at all. Ostensibly our elected officials are in power but in reality it sure doesn't seem that way (with a handful of exceptions). You can't pump all that money into politics and expect it to have no effect. And while "most money spent" != "won election" it sure helps a lot, as in you need money to run a successful campaign so you are going to be beholden to someone. Even purest of heart are going to be at least slightly biased and I seriously doubt I'd consider the majority of elected officials to fall into the category of "people with pure hearts". The incentives are just not there to set ourselves up for success.
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    Officials are not in power, Money is in power.
mindslight 3y ago
Unfortunately, calls to "spend less" usually end up serving as a fig leaf over a political agenda that includes massive spending from the Federal Reserve in the form of ZIRP. The focus on "spending" has been sneakily construed to ignore the Federal Reserve, and direct the focus at legislative/executive programs trying to assuage ZIRP's economic damage. For example we'd need far less "affordable housing" assistance if the government hadn't spend decades pumping up the housing market as a Potemkin investment. Furthermore, spending more or less doesn't really have any bearing on the distribution of who taxes are collected from. Your every day W-2 worker is under the thumb of a whole slew of deductions being prohibited to them, plus surveillance databases that make their finances completely legible. So it's a bit disingenuous to imply that tax non-compliance by those already receiving preferential treatment represents some higher ideal rather than just more corruption.
ianburrell 3y ago
The deficit jumped to almost 15% in 2020 with the pandemic. The deficit has returned to normal 5-6% of GDP. 5% is sustainable for forever as long as GDP keeps growing faster. It has been in that range for fifty years except for recessions and Clinton surplus. Also, the government is now paying for the retirement of the boomers. We could increase taxes to pay for the increase. Or we could borrow it, changing debt to Social Security fund to debt to everyone. Or we could slash spending for everything else.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Alternatively we could hire Trump to reprise his "president" character for a TV show, so he resumes encouraging the boomers to get Covid and now RSV.
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  > the government is now paying for the retirement of the boomers. Are there any facts to back up this extraordinary claim? It might help if you explain your definition of "paying for retirement".
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    What is extraordinary about the government paying Social Security and Medicare for the boomers, the second largest cohort in history, who are currently retiring? Up until 2021, Social Security income matched outlays, but the outlays have increased and will keep increasing. Social Security is now drawing from the trust fund; it is small now but will get worse. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59340 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59340
    - PopAlongKid 3y ago
      >government paying Social Security and Medicare for the boomers, Is that your definition of paying for retirement? Also, as a side note, recipients of Medicare pay Medicare premiums.
nxobject 3y ago
Truth be told, I'd rather we give enforcing the equally-applied rule of law a shot first.
- exabrial 3y ago
  I'd be willing to compromise on that, with the provision we roll it out at the top first; starting with Senators/Reps
  - nxobject 3y ago
    That's a deal! Wasteful spending, personal profit, and congressional privilege all go together hand in hand.
MilnerRoute 3y ago
So in this scenario, "people he bought shots for" are the solar panel vendors?

timcavel 3y ago

[dead]

devaiops9001 3y ago

Wow. Does this mean they can fix climate change now?