- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 28,928
- Reaction score
- 45,260
- Location
- Hiding from ICE
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."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.
Gotts fill the tRump hole first.I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
Why?I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
It's not stupid, and you've failed to understand my intent (no surprise there).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....
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.
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.
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!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.
There's this silly little thing called a 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.I'd be okay restoring that funding if we also agreed to reduce taxes by the amount gained from the "multiplier."
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.I would be fine with splitting up the gain evenly between everyone who earns less than 50k a year with a tax credit.
Yes, there is, but are you so naive that you believe this newfound money will go to paying down the debt?There's this silly little thing called a deficit!!
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.
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?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.
Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budgetwww.budget.senate.gov
Really? Tell us what happened to annual federal revenues after those tax cuts, did they go up or down?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.
Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budgetwww.budget.senate.gov
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.
We already have an ample social safety net. Those who do not earn do not need still more publicly funded charity.Yea, i wouldn't do that. I would give it to the people who need it.
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.
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.Yes, there is, but are you so naive that you believe this newfound money will go to paying down the debt?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?