• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Seriously Ticks Me Off

Loulit01

RESIST
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
28,560
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Hiding from ICE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Congress just cut IRS funding. It costs even more than we thought.​


The White House and Congress recently agreed to claw back more than $20 billion earmarked for the Internal Revenue Service. This deal was, ostensibly, part of a grand bargain to reduce budget deficits.

Unfortunately, it’s likely to have the opposite effect. Every dollar available for auditing taxpayers generates many times that amount for government coffers — and the rate of return is especially astonishing for audits of the wealthiest Americans, according to new research shared exclusively with The Post.

A team of researchers at Harvard University, the University of Sydney and the Treasury Department examined internal IRS data for approximately 710,000 in-person audits from 2010 to 2014. Here’s what they found:

These figures take into account any agency resources spent on appeals, collections, etc., as well as the fact that some lucky taxpayers ended up owing no additional money after the audit process was completed.

And even those eye-popping numbers understate how much money we’re leaving on the table by not fully enforcing tax law. That’s because the biggest bang for the buck comes from what happens well after the audit concludes.

In the years after a taxpayer gets audited, they start paying much more in taxes voluntarily. Maybe, post-audit, they stop taking some dodgy deductions (counting a personal car as a business expense, for example). Or they start reporting income they had previously accepted off the books.

These kinds of changes might happen because the taxpayer in question had previously made an honest mistake. Then again, maybe they had been deliberately cheating Uncle Sam, and were chastened by being caught.

Either way: they begin paying more of what they owe.

These additional taxes equal about three times the revenue raised from the initial audit, on average, over the 14 years of data the researchers had access to. So in other words, the biggest returns from doing more audits come from deterrence effects. (That’s why, incidentally, the IRS has historically publicized its big tax fraud cases in the weeks before Tax Day, when most Americans are filing their returns.)

That multiplier — three times as much revenue from deterrence effects as from the initial audit — is relatively consistent across the income distribution, with both rich and poor adjusting their post-audit tax habits significantly. Which still means that in raw dollar terms auditing the rich has bigger payoffs.
 
Well, yeah, we knew the GOP was engaging in financial terrorism to benefit the wealthiest.

And their idiot base will vote for this to their own detriment simply because it might piss off a liberal somewhere.
 

Congress just cut IRS funding. It costs even more than we thought.​


The White House and Congress recently agreed to claw back more than $20 billion earmarked for the Internal Revenue Service. This deal was, ostensibly, part of a grand bargain to reduce budget deficits.

Unfortunately, it’s likely to have the opposite effect. Every dollar available for auditing taxpayers generates many times that amount for government coffers — and the rate of return is especially astonishing for audits of the wealthiest Americans, according to new research shared exclusively with The Post.

A team of researchers at Harvard University, the University of Sydney and the Treasury Department examined internal IRS data for approximately 710,000 in-person audits from 2010 to 2014. Here’s what they found:

These figures take into account any agency resources spent on appeals, collections, etc., as well as the fact that some lucky taxpayers ended up owing no additional money after the audit process was completed.

And even those eye-popping numbers understate how much money we’re leaving on the table by not fully enforcing tax law. That’s because the biggest bang for the buck comes from what happens well after the audit concludes.

In the years after a taxpayer gets audited, they start paying much more in taxes voluntarily. Maybe, post-audit, they stop taking some dodgy deductions (counting a personal car as a business expense, for example). Or they start reporting income they had previously accepted off the books.

These kinds of changes might happen because the taxpayer in question had previously made an honest mistake. Then again, maybe they had been deliberately cheating Uncle Sam, and were chastened by being caught.

Either way: they begin paying more of what they owe.

These additional taxes equal about three times the revenue raised from the initial audit, on average, over the 14 years of data the researchers had access to. So in other words, the biggest returns from doing more audits come from deterrence effects. (That’s why, incidentally, the IRS has historically publicized its big tax fraud cases in the weeks before Tax Day, when most Americans are filing their returns.)

That multiplier — three times as much revenue from deterrence effects as from the initial audit — is relatively consistent across the income distribution, with both rich and poor adjusting their post-audit tax habits significantly. Which still means that in raw dollar terms auditing the rich has bigger payoffs.
I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
 
If the ROI is so great from auditing then why do they need taxpayers dollars? They should just borrow 20 billion dollars, perform the audits, reap the benefits and then use that to pay back the loan.
 
I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."

What a stupid thing to say.

"The multiplier" only exists because of rich tax cheats. The only way to get rid of it is to audit them even less. The problem is that they are already audited way less than you or me. And the entire point of giving the IRS money is so that it can do more audits especially in complex cases and thus catch tax cheats.

Is there a moral confusion here for you? Tax cheats are bad. Cheating on taxes is bad. Does that help?

Goddamn it is scary just how much self-defeating idiocy the GOP can get you people to vote for just by promising to attack all those people you want to see attacked: black people, LGBTQ, immigrants, really any vulnterable group.





Sealion-trolling in 3.... 2....
 
What a stupid thing to say.

"The multiplier" only exists because of rich tax cheats. The only way to get rid of it is to audit them even less. The problem is that they are already audited way less than you or me. And the entire point of giving the IRS money is so that it can do more audits especially in complex cases and thus catch tax cheats.

Is there a moral confusion here for you? Tax cheats are bad. Cheating on taxes is bad. Does that help?

Goddamn it is scary just how much self-defeating idiocy the GOP can get you people to vote for just by promising to attack all those people you want to see attacked: black people, LGBTQ, immigrants, really any vulnterable group.





Sealion-trolling in 3.... 2....
It's not stupid, and you've failed to understand my intent (no surprise there).

No one is saying tax cheats are good, and I'm all for enforcing tax laws. But if this initiative is going to generate more revenue, as its supporters claim, then I would be willing to support it if the newly gain revenue was spent in the form of broad based tax credits; i.e. don't spend the new money on federal programs, return it to taxpayers.

Slow down and you'll make fewer mistakes.
 
It's not stupid, and you've failed to understand my intent (no surprise there).

No one is saying tax cheats are good, and I'm all for enforcing tax laws. But if this initiative is going to generate more revenue, as its supporters claim, then I would be willing to support it if the newly gain revenue was spent in the form of broad based tax credits; i.e. don't spend the new money on federal programs, return it to taxpayers.

Slow down and you'll make fewer mistakes.
Again, why?
 
It's not stupid, and you've failed to understand my intent (no surprise there).

No one is saying tax cheats are good, and I'm all for enforcing tax laws. But if this initiative is going to generate more revenue, as its supporters claim, then I would be willing to support it if the newly gain revenue was spent in the form of broad based tax credits; i.e. don't spend the new money on federal programs, return it to taxpayers.

Slow down and you'll make fewer mistakes.

I would be fine with splitting up the gain evenly between everyone who earns less than 50k a year with a tax credit.
 
If the ROI is so great from auditing then why do they need taxpayers dollars? They should just borrow 20 billion dollars, perform the audits, reap the benefits and then use that to pay back the loan.
That was exactly what the Dems were going to do before the Republicans decided that they had a 'special need' to remove this funding from the deficit!
 
I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
The taxes cut by TFG created $3.5 trillion in debt. The tax cuts benefitted the wealthy and corporations some who pay 0 federal dollars.
The increase to IRS resources would result in collecting money to offset the debt.

 
Oh well...guess its time to cut spending instead.
 
I would be fine with splitting up the gain evenly between everyone who earns less than 50k a year with a tax credit.
No, I would only give the money back to people who pay taxes in the first place. Many (most?) under $50k have no federal tax liability.
 
Whatever lets the 1% hide more dollars.
 
No, I would only give the money back to people who pay taxes in the first place. Many (most?) under $50k have no federal tax liability.

Yea, i wouldn't do that. I would give it to the people who need it.
 
The taxes cut by TFG created $3.5 trillion in debt. The tax cuts benefitted the wealthy and corporations some who pay 0 federal dollars.
The increase to IRS resources would result in collecting money to offset the debt.
Thinking like this is so wrong headed. Do you think the IRS is going to catch the uber wealthy, or are the uber wealthy the ones with teams of CPA's who follow the letter of the law and all the loopholes entitled them?

What this results in is another hit to the middle class people who don't have those teams.
 
The taxes cut by TFG created $3.5 trillion in debt. The tax cuts benefitted the wealthy and corporations some who pay 0 federal dollars.
The increase to IRS resources would result in collecting money to offset the debt.

Really? Tell us what happened to annual federal revenues after those tax cuts, did they go up or down?
 
Thinking like this is so wrong headed. Do you think the IRS is going to catch the uber wealthy, or are the uber wealthy the ones with teams of CPA's who follow the letter of the law and all the loopholes entitled them?

What this results in is another hit to the middle class people who don't have those teams.

Why the Rich Don’t Get Audited​

The I.R.S. doesn’t have the resources it needs to chase offshore accounts and tax cheats.
 
The problem with weaponizing the government to go after people you don't like is that eventually someone will use the same weapon to come after you.

Reap what you sow.




Thinking like this is so wrong headed. Do you think the IRS is going to catch the uber wealthy, or are the uber wealthy the ones with teams of CPA's who follow the letter of the law and all the loopholes entitled them?

What this results in is another hit to the middle class people who don't have those teams.
 
Yes, there is, but are you so naive that you believe this newfound money will go to paying down the debt?
Are you so naïve that you believe that tax cuts will fix the countries deficit? Extra income will reduce future borrowing regardless of which party is in power.
 
Back
Top Bottom