4 ms·

I had friends and relatives who worked for the US IRS in the 80s, they all would say the IRS was the one place that budgets will never be cut, so the felt far m

by jmclnx 2y ago

I had friends and relatives who worked for the US IRS in the 80s, they all would say the IRS was the one place that budgets will never be cut, so the felt far more secure than I did in Tech. Little did they know the top 1% would get with one specific US Political Party to cut the IRS budget so thy can all cheat on their taxes. It is cheaper for them to hire lawyers than to pay their "fair share".

Zelphyr 2y ago
[flagged]
- XMPPwocky 2y ago
  Where can I read more about this?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- QuercusMax 2y ago
  What kind of "families"? Crime families? Sources please.
- sandwitches 2y ago
  I see several massive I-beams in your argument that are buckling due to a lack of support. Mind shoring them up with sources, boss?
doe_eyes 2y ago
It's a narrative that's easy to believe in because audit rates are going down. But when you think about it... why should be they going up? In the 1980s and before, the IRS literally had no way of knowing if you're telling the truth without auditing you. Everything was done on paper, cash was king. So the audits were indiscriminate and invasive, and needed a large army of employees to orchestrate. Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Paypal and Venmo send them your info if you receive more than $500 in a year. There is nothing to be gained by randomly auditing the average family if the numbers on their report match what the IRS knows. The IRS can zero in on specific activities, such as people claiming unusual business deductions. But they no longer need to routinely audit most of us, and they don't need funding to that effect.
- noodlesUK 2y ago
  > Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Paypal and Venmo send them your info if you receive more than $500 in a year. There is nothing to be gained by randomly auditing the average family if the numbers on their report match what the IRS knows. The IRS can zero in on specific activities, such as people claiming unusual business deductions. But they no longer need to routinely audit most of us, and they don't need funding to that effect. I think that this is a solid argument for why the government should be reducing filing burdens. If they already have the vast bulk of what is needed, and they're able to rely on that to audit people in case of discrepancies, they also should allow people to file more easily (or not file at all) using that information. Many other countries, including the UK where I currently live have a system wherein the most common kinds of employment don't require filing at all. The US could become one of them if it really wanted to.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Yeah. If you have at least somewhat complicated taxes, you have at least somewhat complicated taxes. But a lot of people don't. If someone only has a W-2 and maybe a 1099, they're probably covered. Even mortgage deductions are less common these days.
  - cco 2y ago
    They're making progress there, they ran a trial with a limited number of states for a few years now and I believe this year or next year they're opening up direct e-filing with the IRS.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Afaik, this is both true and not. The IRS gets very specific data points, that institutions are required by law to give them. That's largely a complete picture of your income, at least from sources that are required to report. What they have no idea about is your expenses or classification thereof. If we decided to move to a progressive (more money = higher rates) and no exemption/deduction system, then the IRS would have everything needed. But in fact we have a spaghetti of deductions, because it's far easier to sneak a special interest deduction into the tax code.
mc32 2y ago
I am under the impression the majority of 1%ers vote for the party we don’t envision them being part of. Things have flipped over the last decade. The populist and 1%er parties have flipped.
- adventured 2y ago
  Factually that's correct. We can just say it as it is here, frankly. The 1% are overwhelmingly Democrats. They live in cities like NYC, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston. Nearly all relevant US cities are extremely to the left in terms of wealth and voters. The Forbes 400 is overwhelmingly Democrat voting and donating these days. The very richest in the US are overwhelmingly Democrats. From Zuckerberg to Bezos to Buffett to Gates, the elite of the Forbes 400 are not far right wingers or Trumpers or Conservatives. They vote center-left and they donate center-left. They champion left causes almost exclusively. You won't catch them backing Trump. The Democrats used to have the south as a voting block, until the late 1990s / early 2000s. Those people are the foundation of the right vote today. The left abandoned them and largely gave up on domestic blue-collar labor.
pembrook 2y ago
If the IRS budget since the 80s hasn't decreased on a per-capita, inflation-adjusted basis, then something has gone horribly wrong. Why the heck would we want tax collection to get more inefficient every year? This one of the most misguided narratives I see from people of the other "specific US political party" to the one you're referring to. As another commenter pointed out, if the transition away from cash and self-reporting to automatic data collection on hundreds of millions of Americans hasn't produced any productivity gains, then everything the the "evil 1%ers" have been saying about the ills of government are in fact true.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  > Why the heck would we want tax collection to get more inefficient every year? There is a subset of Republicans who believe that taxes should be painful. They should be constantly front-of-mind for every American. It keeps people from forgetting about income taxes and having them fade from public discourse.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > There is a subset of Republicans who believe that taxes should be painful Can you cite this?
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Look up Grover Norquist and his lasting influence on even modern Republican policy.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > he is the primary promoter of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, and net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate This guy?
    - ProjectArcturis 2y ago
godelski 2y ago
> the top 1% would get with one specific US Political Party This is where people get it wrong, and VERY wrong. The IRS's budget had even significantly fallen between 2010 and 2014[0,1]. But it also increased from 2000 to 2004, then decreased, and increased from 2007 to 2010. Democrats only held congressional control (house and senate) in that second increase[2], but in some of those times the entire government was Republican controlled (granted, very narrow). I'm not trying to say the Republicans are the "good guys." Actually I'm saying the opposite. I'm just saying that the defunding of the IRS isn't a partisan issue. It's just one is much more vocal about it. This isn't an issue we can solve if we simply blame one side. Just remember, you can hold those that you side with accountable. So if you're a Democrat, it's important to be critical of Democrats or if you're a Republican, to be critical of Republicans. If you give your side a pass and just blame the other side, you bet people are going to take advantage of that. And they have. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuil... [1] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/war-irs https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/war-irs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...
standardUser 2y ago
This cannot be stated clearly enough. The Republican Party at the federal level has made it their policy position to defund the IRS to make it easier for the wealthy to cheat on their taxes.
- sandwitches 2y ago
  It's a common destructive strategy: don't outlaw the thing, outlaw or defund the thing's infrastructure. Can't outlaw abortion? Outlaw abortion pills. Can't outlaw education? Defund public school. Congress won't outlaw the IRS (for now), but they can bury budget cuts deep within omnibus spending bills.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by jmclnx 2y ago

Zelphyr 2y ago

[flagged]

XMPPwocky 2y ago
Where can I read more about this?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
QuercusMax 2y ago
What kind of "families"? Crime families? Sources please.
sandwitches 2y ago
I see several massive I-beams in your argument that are buckling due to a lack of support. Mind shoring them up with sources, boss?

doe_eyes 2y ago

It's a narrative that's easy to believe in because audit rates are going down. But when you think about it... why should be they going up? In the 1980s and before, the IRS literally had no way of knowing if you're telling the truth without auditing you. Everything was done on paper, cash was king. So the audits were indiscriminate and invasive, and needed a large army of employees to orchestrate. Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Paypal and Venmo send them your info if you receive more than $500 in a year. There is nothing to be gained by randomly auditing the average family if the numbers on their report match what the IRS knows. The IRS can zero in on specific activities, such as people claiming unusual business deductions. But they no longer need to routinely audit most of us, and they don't need funding to that effect.

noodlesUK 2y ago
> Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Paypal and Venmo send them your info if you receive more than $500 in a year. There is nothing to be gained by randomly auditing the average family if the numbers on their report match what the IRS knows. The IRS can zero in on specific activities, such as people claiming unusual business deductions. But they no longer need to routinely audit most of us, and they don't need funding to that effect. I think that this is a solid argument for why the government should be reducing filing burdens. If they already have the vast bulk of what is needed, and they're able to rely on that to audit people in case of discrepancies, they also should allow people to file more easily (or not file at all) using that information. Many other countries, including the UK where I currently live have a system wherein the most common kinds of employment don't require filing at all. The US could become one of them if it really wanted to.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Yeah. If you have at least somewhat complicated taxes, you have at least somewhat complicated taxes. But a lot of people don't. If someone only has a W-2 and maybe a 1099, they're probably covered. Even mortgage deductions are less common these days.
- cco 2y ago
  They're making progress there, they ran a trial with a limited number of states for a few years now and I believe this year or next year they're opening up direct e-filing with the IRS.
ethbr1 2y ago
> Now, the IRS knows almost everything about your finances. They get electronic data from your employers, your bank, your brokerage. Most of commerce is settled electronically. Afaik, this is both true and not. The IRS gets very specific data points, that institutions are required by law to give them. That's largely a complete picture of your income, at least from sources that are required to report. What they have no idea about is your expenses or classification thereof. If we decided to move to a progressive (more money = higher rates) and no exemption/deduction system, then the IRS would have everything needed. But in fact we have a spaghetti of deductions, because it's far easier to sneak a special interest deduction into the tax code.

mc32 2y ago

I am under the impression the majority of 1%ers vote for the party we don’t envision them being part of. Things have flipped over the last decade. The populist and 1%er parties have flipped.

adventured 2y ago
Factually that's correct. We can just say it as it is here, frankly. The 1% are overwhelmingly Democrats. They live in cities like NYC, LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston. Nearly all relevant US cities are extremely to the left in terms of wealth and voters. The Forbes 400 is overwhelmingly Democrat voting and donating these days. The very richest in the US are overwhelmingly Democrats. From Zuckerberg to Bezos to Buffett to Gates, the elite of the Forbes 400 are not far right wingers or Trumpers or Conservatives. They vote center-left and they donate center-left. They champion left causes almost exclusively. You won't catch them backing Trump. The Democrats used to have the south as a voting block, until the late 1990s / early 2000s. Those people are the foundation of the right vote today. The left abandoned them and largely gave up on domestic blue-collar labor.

pembrook 2y ago

If the IRS budget since the 80s hasn't decreased on a per-capita, inflation-adjusted basis, then something has gone horribly wrong. Why the heck would we want tax collection to get more inefficient every year? This one of the most misguided narratives I see from people of the other "specific US political party" to the one you're referring to. As another commenter pointed out, if the transition away from cash and self-reporting to automatic data collection on hundreds of millions of Americans hasn't produced any productivity gains, then everything the the "evil 1%ers" have been saying about the ills of government are in fact true.

mywittyname 2y ago
> Why the heck would we want tax collection to get more inefficient every year? There is a subset of Republicans who believe that taxes should be painful. They should be constantly front-of-mind for every American. It keeps people from forgetting about income taxes and having them fade from public discourse.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > There is a subset of Republicans who believe that taxes should be painful Can you cite this?
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Look up Grover Norquist and his lasting influence on even modern Republican policy.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > he is the primary promoter of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, and net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate This guy?
  - ProjectArcturis 2y ago

godelski 2y ago

> the top 1% would get with one specific US Political Party This is where people get it wrong, and VERY wrong. The IRS's budget had even significantly fallen between 2010 and 2014[0,1]. But it also increased from 2000 to 2004, then decreased, and increased from 2007 to 2010. Democrats only held congressional control (house and senate) in that second increase[2], but in some of those times the entire government was Republican controlled (granted, very narrow). I'm not trying to say the Republicans are the "good guys." Actually I'm saying the opposite. I'm just saying that the defunding of the IRS isn't a partisan issue. It's just one is much more vocal about it. This isn't an issue we can solve if we simply blame one side. Just remember, you can hold those that you side with accountable. So if you're a Democrat, it's important to be critical of Democrats or if you're a Republican, to be critical of Republicans. If you give your side a pass and just blame the other side, you bet people are going to take advantage of that. And they have. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuil... [1] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/war-irs https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/war-irs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...

standardUser 2y ago

This cannot be stated clearly enough. The Republican Party at the federal level has made it their policy position to defund the IRS to make it easier for the wealthy to cheat on their taxes.

sandwitches 2y ago
It's a common destructive strategy: don't outlaw the thing, outlaw or defund the thing's infrastructure. Can't outlaw abortion? Outlaw abortion pills. Can't outlaw education? Defund public school. Congress won't outlaw the IRS (for now), but they can bury budget cuts deep within omnibus spending bills.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]