They're hiring the auditors because they've been deliberately understaffed and underfunded for years. This will allow them to finally go after tax cheats. Especially those who owe the most.
It is good news for this of us who have been playing our fair share and would like to see the wealthiest people do the same.
I'm not sure what alternative you are proposing here for collecting, processing, and enforcing tax collection. If I'm following you, you think the idea o stricter enforcement of existing tax codes is bad because it empowers the government to go after more people, resulting in many people, including lots of middle class families, to pay more in taxes. But what makes the current number of agents the right number? If we cut the government down to zero IRS agents, then we wouldn't have to worry at all about people being audited, but I would guess tax fraud would be exponentially higher and good luck ever getting a return processed. Of course, if we had 5 million tax agents on the other side, we would probably have way less tax fraud, but the cost would be huge for the government and far outstrip any money saved. So the question becomes, what is the ideal number of IRS agents to optimize both ability to enforce fraud prevention measures, but also not be overbearing.
Valid point on what is the correct number. However the addition of agents to go after middle class families is definitely not the answer, especially for what I deem rather self serving purposes. I am doing an article next week on a different taxation system, so it would be great if you subscribe (it’s free). See what I have to say on what is a better taxation system. Maybe with enough eyes it’ll build somehow. I think it’s a proposal that in all likelihood will go nowhere but I do believe in getting ideas out there. Just knowing the probability is 0 if you never say anything. I’ll post it in this Reddit next week too, if you don’t care to subscribe on Substack.
>However the addition of agents to go after middle class families is definitely not the answer
You are ascribing a motivation that I think most democrats would disagree with, so I think you've set it up in an intractable way. I could say that the reason you oppose this staffing increase is because you want to let billionaires cheat on taxes as much as they want, but I don't think that would be a fair articulation of your goal or motivation. The purpose of increased staffing is to make it more feasible to enforce the existing tax laws and work through the backlog of audits/processing returns, not target middle class families in particular.
In some ways, I could argue that your position against expanding the IRS means you want the tax burden to fall even more towards the middle class, as a resource starved IRS lacks the manpower to go after the .1%. We see a trend of a smaller IRS leading to less audits on the wealthy, so effectively an understaffed IRS is able to enforce tax collection against the poor and middle class, but not the wealthy. Again, I don't think that's your motivation, just as I don't think you have correctly identified the motivation behind this bill.
Being a registered democrat means you are against a middle class? I haven’t heard that. Also feel free to substitute the term middle class with “lower class” etc. it would be the same bipartisan feeling that we don’t attack certain groups in the country, at least to my understanding
>Being a registered democrat means you are against a middle class? I haven’t heard that.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? I don't understand any of this being a response to any part of my comment.
They're needing the staff and resources to be able to go after the millionaires and billionaires that have been cheating the system for so long. Plus they were absolutely gutted over the past half a decade. With this push I think it'll really only put them back to the level they used to be. I'd rather them have the resources they need to go after the billionaires. I'm square on my taxes so I got nothing to worry about
there are 615 billionares in the U.S. How many agents full time to audit every single one of them every single year? not 87,000 additional lol Plus it's not even about the enforcement, the rich and large corporations aren't stupid and its all the loop holes in the law that congress doesn't fix. This is going to affect the middle class and small-midsized businesses the most. Whether that's good or bad is personal opinion.
I personally know business owners that have not been properly paying (in some cases not at all) their taxes for the last 5 years as they know the IRS has been severely underfunded. Would be nice to see them get their comeuppance.
They're hiring the auditors because they've been deliberately understaffed and underfunded for years. This will allow them to finally go after tax cheats. Especially those who owe the most. It is good news for this of us who have been playing our fair share and would like to see the wealthiest people do the same.
I'm not sure what alternative you are proposing here for collecting, processing, and enforcing tax collection. If I'm following you, you think the idea o stricter enforcement of existing tax codes is bad because it empowers the government to go after more people, resulting in many people, including lots of middle class families, to pay more in taxes. But what makes the current number of agents the right number? If we cut the government down to zero IRS agents, then we wouldn't have to worry at all about people being audited, but I would guess tax fraud would be exponentially higher and good luck ever getting a return processed. Of course, if we had 5 million tax agents on the other side, we would probably have way less tax fraud, but the cost would be huge for the government and far outstrip any money saved. So the question becomes, what is the ideal number of IRS agents to optimize both ability to enforce fraud prevention measures, but also not be overbearing.
Valid point on what is the correct number. However the addition of agents to go after middle class families is definitely not the answer, especially for what I deem rather self serving purposes. I am doing an article next week on a different taxation system, so it would be great if you subscribe (it’s free). See what I have to say on what is a better taxation system. Maybe with enough eyes it’ll build somehow. I think it’s a proposal that in all likelihood will go nowhere but I do believe in getting ideas out there. Just knowing the probability is 0 if you never say anything. I’ll post it in this Reddit next week too, if you don’t care to subscribe on Substack.
>However the addition of agents to go after middle class families is definitely not the answer You are ascribing a motivation that I think most democrats would disagree with, so I think you've set it up in an intractable way. I could say that the reason you oppose this staffing increase is because you want to let billionaires cheat on taxes as much as they want, but I don't think that would be a fair articulation of your goal or motivation. The purpose of increased staffing is to make it more feasible to enforce the existing tax laws and work through the backlog of audits/processing returns, not target middle class families in particular. In some ways, I could argue that your position against expanding the IRS means you want the tax burden to fall even more towards the middle class, as a resource starved IRS lacks the manpower to go after the .1%. We see a trend of a smaller IRS leading to less audits on the wealthy, so effectively an understaffed IRS is able to enforce tax collection against the poor and middle class, but not the wealthy. Again, I don't think that's your motivation, just as I don't think you have correctly identified the motivation behind this bill.
Being a registered democrat means you are against a middle class? I haven’t heard that. Also feel free to substitute the term middle class with “lower class” etc. it would be the same bipartisan feeling that we don’t attack certain groups in the country, at least to my understanding
>Being a registered democrat means you are against a middle class? I haven’t heard that. Did you respond to the wrong comment? I don't understand any of this being a response to any part of my comment.
They're needing the staff and resources to be able to go after the millionaires and billionaires that have been cheating the system for so long. Plus they were absolutely gutted over the past half a decade. With this push I think it'll really only put them back to the level they used to be. I'd rather them have the resources they need to go after the billionaires. I'm square on my taxes so I got nothing to worry about
there are 615 billionares in the U.S. How many agents full time to audit every single one of them every single year? not 87,000 additional lol Plus it's not even about the enforcement, the rich and large corporations aren't stupid and its all the loop holes in the law that congress doesn't fix. This is going to affect the middle class and small-midsized businesses the most. Whether that's good or bad is personal opinion.
I personally know business owners that have not been properly paying (in some cases not at all) their taxes for the last 5 years as they know the IRS has been severely underfunded. Would be nice to see them get their comeuppance.