Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Oct 06 00:05:33 2022

Utopia Talk / Politics / Biden shakes down the poor w/87k IRS age
Habebe
Member
Mon Aug 08 17:29:59
They are not hiring 87k new IRS agents to go after a few hundred billionaires.

We already know the IRS intentionally targets the poorest Americans. Why? The best bang for their buck, why go after people who can afford high priced lawyers.

http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/679/

"
IRS Audits Poorest Families at Five Times the Rate for Everyone Else
A large increase in federal income tax audits targeting the poorest wage earners allowed the Internal Revenue Service to keep overall audit numbers from further declines for Americans as a whole during FY 2021. That resulted in these low-income wage earners with less than $25,000 in total gross receipts being audited at a rate five times higher than for everyone else."

Can anyone explain how this is not a war on poor people?

I just got a letter today saying I owed 9.5k from 2015! Mind you I probably made less than 40k that year. I paid my taxes too.
Rugian
Member
Mon Aug 08 17:57:00
"I just got a letter today saying I owed 9.5k from 2015!"

Jesus fucking Christ. That's brutal bro.
Rugian
Member
Mon Aug 08 18:00:29
And yeah, you don't need to throw $80 billion at the IRS if you just want them to go after a few uber-rich people.

We're all about to get fucked boys. Get the lube ready, the taxman cometh.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Aug 08 18:03:12
i still haven't gotten my refund

& trying to get a human on the phone requires about a 10-step process including not responding to one automated question... & still doesn't work as says too many calls, call later

so yeah, get some more people
Habebe
Member
Mon Aug 08 18:14:53
Rugian, It doesn't even say how I owe this. Its real vague and just wants me to contact them.

I was working forklift back then.So its not like a 1099 or anything, I'll probably have to contact my old employer and all this other BS.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Aug 08 18:15:39
statement on raid released by Trump (seems edited by an adult):
http://pbs...AAmwuH?format=jpg&name=900x900

he leaves no traces so not super confident they'll find something
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Mon Aug 08 18:15:53
oops wrong thread
murder
Member
Mon Aug 08 19:11:10

This is one hell of a coincidence.

kargen
Member
Mon Aug 08 19:15:48
Going off on a bit of a tangent but when I was living in Texas an IRS agent froze my corporate account right before she left town for a month. I was paying myself a monthly salary and at the end of the year I would bonus out all the corporate account except enough to pay my January salary. Doing that prevented having to pay capital gains taxes for the corporation.
She later tried to claim my account was froze so she could investigate suspicious activity. I had been doing that for years though and it is perfectly legal to give out bonuses.

I was bitching about it at the studio and two other photographers said they were either audited by her or had accounts frozen. We started talking to other photographers and she had targeted at least 13 photographers in the Dallas area. She didn't bother any of the larger studios.

Turns out she didn't have the authority to freeze any accounts. If she saw something she thought was off she was suppose to pass the information on to the investigating branch of the IRS.
Cost her her job in the end but she really fucked over a lot of people that were month to month.

This year I got a notice in June that the IRS that my return was either incomplete or damaged. Gave me 15 days to respond and informed me a refund could be delayed even farther if I didn't respond promptly. My refund is only four dollars though because I guessed really well on my quarterly payments. I sent them another copy on time but still don't have my four dollars.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Aug 09 08:27:41
Republicans in Power: Defund the IRS/EPA/State Department. Complain about how government doesn't work after having massively underfunded it.

Republicans-out-of-Power: Whine when democrats try to staff at levels that allow agencies to do their jobs.

Rinse, wash, and repeat.
murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 08:39:14

The Democrats just don't know how to play the game. In response to all this bullshit Joe Biden and the Democrats should announce a new bill mandating that all IRS resources be devoted to scrutinizing the tax returns of the top 20% of income earners.

Then let Republican Representatives and Senators vote on that.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 09 08:58:36
"allow agencies to do their jobs."

> IRS hounding poor people with side hustles
> EPA hounding middle class people with runoff creeks on their property
> State Department publicly opining in legacy media for foreign war

Lol yeah fuck them and their staffing
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 09:06:27
"The Democrats just don't know how to play the game. In response to all this bullshit Joe Biden and the Democrats should announce a new bill mandating that all IRS resources be devoted to scrutinizing the tax returns of the top 20% of income earners."

The problem is that you think that's what they want!

That's their donor class. The IRS is primarily designed to gonafter people that cant afford lawyers.

Its why people making under $25k a year are audited at a rate 5x higher than everyone else and account for the majority of all audits.

Why audit someone who will fight back and be costly and harder to beat?

They are focusing on your billionaires, they are focusing on waitresses, garage sales, contracters and babysitters.

The Democratic party hates theblower the classes even more than thr Republican party if you havn't picked up on that yet.
murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 09:28:28

"The problem is that you think that's what they want! That's their donor class. The IRS is primarily designed to gonafter people that cant afford lawyers."

Cool! Then lets raise all their taxes. That'll show the Democrats donor class.

murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 09:36:56

"The Democratic party hates theblower the classes even more than thr Republican party if you havn't picked up on that yet."

Clearly. That's why they are always trying to get them healthcare and shit. It's out of spite.

murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 09:37:45

And that whole free education thing is clearly targeted at their wealthy donor class.

Dukhat
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:11:53
"Its why people making under $25k a year are audited at a rate 5x higher than everyone else and account for the majority of all audits."

My "rich" cousins were so stupid they claimed to make this amount of money for years. They were simply tax-evading and hiding how much their restaurant makes. They were too greedy and were easily caught after an audit.

A lot of the stupid tax evaders try to report low levels of income.

Even so, if you take the proportion of rich people in the country to to the poor people, rich people do tend to be audited more.

At any rate, I don't love the IRS either, but I'm not going to give Amazon and huge corporations leverage to rip us off any longer. If something annoys me, you can ask your dem representative to change the law and they listen sometimes. Republicans never listen unless you have a billion dollars and a hand up their ass.
Rugian
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:17:58
"you can ask your dem representative to change the law and they listen sometimes."

So ridiculously untrue. Democrats report to the small number of organizations that principally bankroll their campaigns - the teachers unions and various advocacy groups. That's where they get their marching orders on policy from.

Your average congressperson has a constitutiency of like 750,000 people. To think that you as an individual have any influence with your representative whatsoever is laughable.
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:18:01
"Even so, if you take the proportion of rich people in the country to to the poor people, rich people do tend to be audited more."

Absolutley false. Your making shit up.

Even at a proportional rate poorer people are audited more.

Thise rates are per 1k files.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:39:27
You never properly cite anything so I don't believe you.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:40:41
Republicans actually went after their traditional voting base of upper middle-class people because they ran out of money to give their super-rich donors a tax cut.

They're surviving now because dumb poor people are easily distracted by culture wars bullshit.
nhill
Member
Tue Aug 09 12:45:52
Habebe. The people that need to be audited often have tiny reported income. That's can be why they get audited-- the reported income being smaller than the IRS expected. I'm unsure that the original source has taken that into account.
Rugian
Member
Tue Aug 09 13:08:06
"They're surviving now because dumb poor people are easily distracted by culture wars bullshit."

If the culture wars are such bs, it should be a simple matter for the Democrats to disavow racial politics, anti-Americanism, BLM/Antifa, LGBT extremism, social justice activism in classroom and work environments, gun control, pro-abortion policies, Covid mandates, etc., right?

Oh wait, those are core issues that are near and dear to the Democratic Party.

Shut the fuck up with the "Republicans only care about the culture war" nonsense. Tell you what, conservatives will stop caring about playing defense on the culture war when Democrats stop playing offense to promote it. Deal?
nhill
Member
Tue Aug 09 13:08:35
You tend to take more care with your taxes and naturally hire professional accountants as they become affordable.

That also could help explain discrepancy. The original article doesn't appear to have addressed causation outside of a couple blurbs from "The National Advocate" (no idea who that is or why I should care). It found a lot of correlation. Perhaps I missed where it proved causation?
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Aug 09 13:15:34
Ya, at this point its pretty clear that democrats are the party of losers and mooches... they need these woke policies to get jobs, as they cannot compete on their own ability.

With diversity consulting fees and other such bullshit, half the democrat party would be homeless.

If you have to hand out skilless jobs, cant we at least get the highways cleaned? Even a liberal arts major should be able to handle that.
nhill
Member
Tue Aug 09 13:16:55
>cant we at least get the highways cleaned? Even a liberal arts major should be able to handle that.

Without bitching and moaning? We'd be better off with Roombas than a liberal arts major.
kargen
Member
Tue Aug 09 17:17:29
If we went to a flat tax we could almost entirely do away with the IRS.
Rugian
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:13:22
Kargen

$6 trillion of federal spending per year, spread evenly among 260 million adult Americans, would be an annual tax obligation of $23,000.

I don't think that's happening. What, are people supposed to PAY for the spending that they advocate?
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:18:18
"Tue Aug 09 12:39:27
You never properly cite anything so I don't believe you."

It's in the OP.

"Habebe. The people that need to be audited often have tiny reported income. That's can be why they get audited-- the reported income being smaller than the IRS expected. I'm unsure that the original source has taken that into account."

It doesn't seem to differentiate between claimed and proven income, it says reciepts.

It seems to suggest its largely cash businesses, haircutters, mechanics, bartenders and waitresses.

I would think if your trying to hide large amounts of cash you wouldn't claim to make $20k/yr while tucking away 2 million though.

Regardless this IRS boost has to pay for itself by squeezing extra money out of tax payers.

"You tend to take more care with your taxes and naturally hire professional accountants as they become affordable."

That is likely true, but then were back to hiring 87k new agents to get tax cheats/mistakes made by people even if the reciepts are off what, $50k or less? That seems pretty Sherriff of Nottingham IMHO.

Especially when they sell this as "Going after billionaire cheats" so they pay their "fair share".

When in reality they are going after primarily low-middle class people, but it would face alot less support if they sold it honestly.

They didn't promote the idea that any financial transaction ober $600, including PayPal, venmo etc. Will be documented by the IRS!

It seems kind of crazy that the government largely knows how much ppl make, it seems pointless to subsidize a cottage industry of tax preparers to begin with.
murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:28:17

"If we went to a flat tax we could almost entirely do away with the IRS."

You think that people that cheat on their taxes now would stop if we switched to a flat tax?

Y2A
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:36:50
the wealthy have been able to get away with bullshit games while I am paying sweden-level taxes here in NYC without sweden-level benefits. fuck them, eat the rich!
nhill
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:39:07
>It seems to suggest its largely cash businesses, haircutters, mechanics, bartenders and waitresses.

I'm not sure that follows, but maybe you can help me understand? The use of 'receipt' terminology is strange. They claim to be talking about 160 million individual tax returns. "Total gross receipts" is defined on the IRS as:

"Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses."

And they apply it in the charity and nonprofit section.

So there's something imprecise going on in this article.

But, to my point, many otherwise rich people have tiny incomes. They would, as far as I can tell (wording is imprecise), fall under the umbrella of this data and be grouped with "poor people".

In fact, it would also follow that they are more likely to be audited (via correspondence) if they were otherwise rich yet accidentally or purposefully claimed the earned income credit (by using tax prep software or something).

Or perhaps the Earned Income Credit is simply the easiest aspect to automate correspondence audits.

There's many explanations other than unfair treatment of poor people (mistreatment happens in tons of ways, but I don't buy it here quite yet). If EIC is the easiest to audit, then yeah it'll mean more poor people get audited. That's a side effect of the problem domain, though.
nhill
Member
Tue Aug 09 18:53:03
>You think that people that cheat on their taxes now would stop if we switched to a flat tax?

This one is simple. Get rid of taxes altogether outside of sales taxes. Tax the shit out of consumption, doesn't matter how high. I don't care if it's a 1,000% tax (ideally it would be tuned dynamically based on spending patterns and level of luxury). Just tune it to matching our budget. Continue to not charge tax on things like groceries, raw materials, medical devices, drugs, etc.

No need for income tax or any other individual taxes ever again. Can't game the system any more than sales tax can be currently gamed. IRS can be fully devoted (a skeleton crew, to be sure) to making sure sales taxes are enforced, which, unfortunately would need to include private purchases. Tax on private purchases are a huge negative to this proposal, but there are privacy preserving mechanisms called zero knowledge proofs where you may incur the correct tax without revealing what was sold or even the transaction amount (there's some awesome new algos out there). You pay your taxes when you buy shit you don't need. Otherwise you are left alone.
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:15:19
Nhill, "But, to my point, many otherwise rich people have tiny incomes."

That's true, considering what is "income"

I'll try and see if I can find more comprehensive data, maybe by net worth would be a better metric.

I still think such departments will act according to incentives and nab the lower hanging fruit IE people who cant afford lawyers and large amounts of time away from work. As Milton put it people often want barking cats, meaning they support such institutions as long as they don't act the way they are intended.

But as for consumption based taxes, yeah that seems an easier method.Ot also seems politically unfeasible at this point, alot of states operate this way though.

Even net worth can be tricky when you factor in people not putting anything in their name, for good reason mind you.
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:27:16
The aspect of generally poorer people being targeted does mesh though with the map of high audit districts vs low audit districts where poorer regions also happen to be higher audit regions as well, I'll see if I can find the map.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:29:06
Heard a lot of the same shit Habebe parrots from McConnell and right-wing leaders within a day.

It's amazing how American conservatives think they're all such independent thinkers for not reading "mainstream media" yet they all think the same fucking thing and repeat the same dumb talking points at the same time.
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:35:28
Dukhat, Did they use the same citation?

Are you disputing it or just randomly claiming "Uh it all sounds the same"
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:37:58
I would also point out this is common knowledge and you could find the same information on almost any left wing or legacy news company.
murder
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:39:06

"It's amazing how American conservatives think they're all such independent thinkers for not reading "mainstream media" yet they all think the same fucking thing and repeat the same dumb talking points at the same time."

^ 100% :o)

Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:43:02
Humphreys County, Mississippi, seems like an odd place for the IRS to go hunting for tax cheats. It’s a rural county in the Mississippi Delta known for its catfish farms, and more than a third of its mostly African American residents are below the poverty line. But according to a new study, it is the most heavily audited county in America.

---
The map reveals wide variations in the audit rate from place to place, but also how certain groups of Americans are disproportionately affected by the IRS’ policies. The five counties with the highest audit rates are all predominantly African American, rural counties in the Deep South. The audit rate is also very high in South Texas’ largely Hispanic counties and in counties with Native American reservations, such as in South Dakota. Primarily poor, white counties, such as those in eastern Kentucky in Appalachia, also have elevated audit rates.

The states with the lowest audit rates tend to be home to middle income, largely white populations: places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Generally, the IRS audits taxpayers with household income between $50,000 and $100,000 the least.

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit
Habebe
Member
Tue Aug 09 19:47:28
Btw they spent 80 billion dollars on boosting the IRS, that money has to come from somewhere.

The "receipt" data and poverty zip codes matching the audit zip codes seem to suggest they already target the poor and now have to squeeze them even harder to pay theirnown salaries.

Oh, and send to the Ukraine.
Habebe
Member
Wed Aug 10 15:42:16
Senator Crapo (I know, I know, ots pronounced Cray-po)

Had an amendment to limit the rate at which the IRS targeted people under $400k.

Every Democrat voted against it.

They are not going after the rich. They are bull-shitting you when they say they are.
Habebe
Member
Wed Aug 10 15:50:18
http://youtu.be/C_mJcGsJong

Kim Iverson breaks down just where that funding is going, its going largely towards enforcement.

To call back to TW's issue before about they need more staff to get returns done faster.
nhill
Member
Wed Aug 10 16:01:16
The data aggregated by county does appear to support the initial claim better.

But it, again, revolves around Earned Income Credit. Rather than targeting poor people, as seems to be the spin, it looks like the Earned Income Credit is the lowest hanging fruit to audit via correspondence.

Does it disproportionately effect poor people? Most definitely. Is it targeted at them directly? Seems to be no. They freely admit that EIC is an easy item to audit via correspondence (instead of a full audit that requires personal attention).

Don't think the IRS is unfairly targeting poor people. More likely that they are collateral damage.
Habebe
Member
Wed Aug 10 16:48:58
The EITC if Im not mistaken, is limited to lower income workers.

So yes, if that's the easiest few thousand (I think it's like 4k/kid) to win an audit on then, it kind of goes hand in hand.

I think the IRS will continue to go after the lowest hanging fruit in general.

But my argument is this is being pushed with the promise to "Get those rich tax cheats"

When in reality people making way less are really the target or the low hanging fruit.

The wealthy can afford to shuffle money around enough to legally avoid taxes.

Maybe they are not being targeted because they are poor/middle class, but the poor/MC are the targets because they they are lower hanging fruits.

So were backs to 80 billion dollars being spent to squeeze the working class even more regardless of why the are the targets.

Than the WH claimed no new audits on on households earning less than $400k.

But when asked to codify that in the law every single democrat voted no.

They could even set a quota like they cant be more than 30%, or whatever. The issue is they know who they are taking $ from to pay for shit.
Habebe
Member
Wed Aug 10 16:57:41
Like I get that the wealthy primarily pay total taxes.

But tax enforcement (IRS) primarily targets working class and a drastic increase in agents and resources will not change that, which is how it's being pitched.

To sum up my argument.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Aug 10 21:51:04
Yellen just announced that he directed the IRS not to use the extra resources to audit those making under 400k a year.

More habebe whining about nothing yet again.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Aug 10 21:51:15
she*
Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member
Thu Aug 11 07:48:11
"They are not hiring 87k new IRS agents to go after a few hundred billionaires."

Dude they are not hiring 87k new IRS agents at all, why is everything you post a lie or propaganda?

http://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agents-factcheck-biden/

Trump Allies Are Attacking Biden For a Plan to Hire 87,000 New IRS Agents That Doesn't Exist

Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 08:44:01
"she*"

No, you were right the first time.

If they didn't want this money/agents to target people under 400k, they could have codified that into law, every Democrat chose not to, every Republican voted yes.


It was literally. Crapo calling their bluff.

Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:15:56
Jmb, I call bullshit. The Treasury report themselves says it will enable them to hire 87k more employees.

Now Time claims "That's alo sorts of employees"

However, we know exactly where that money is going FROM THE IRS as I cited earlier.They are hiring enforcement agents.

Time is being very misleading and its intentional as well as they don't actually offer any number of new enforcement agents, so how many will there be?
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:18:37
Correction, further down they claim 20 to 30 thousand but give no citation on those numbers.

The IRS however says roughly 87k.
Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:28:42
Dude if you just read the article it goes through all of your foxnews lies and talking points

According to a Treasury Department official, the funds would cover a wide range of positions including IT technicians and taxpayer services support staff, as well as experienced auditors who would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders.

At the same time, more than half of the agency’s current employees are eligible for retirement and are expected to leave the agency within the next five years.

In all, the IRS might net roughly 20,000 to 30,000 more employees from the new funding, enough to restore the tax-collecting agency’s staff to where it was roughly a decade ago.

The IRS currently has roughly 78,000 employees. According to John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, that’s down from around 100,000 when he first started.

“The largest corporations in the United States with over $20 billion of assets have had their rate of audits go from nearly 100% to 50%,” says Janet Holtzblattt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “Among wealthy individuals who had a positive income of a million dollars or more, the audit rate fell from 8.4% in 2010 to 2.4% in 2019.”

Meanwhile, the employee shortage only made it harder for average Americans to reach IRS customer support, which has been inundated with requests far beyond what the staff could handle.
Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:29:28
I love your lie about how it's aimed at the poor btw do you ever get ashamed of your endless lying dude?
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:33:17
http://youtu.be/C_mJcGsJong

Kim Iverson breaks down just where that funding is going, its going largely towards enforcement.

To call back to TW's issue before about they need more staff to get returns done faster.


----

She details with citations FROM.THE IRS where the money is going.

"A wide range of positions" is vague, this is detailed and its from thr IRS.


*******_*If they did not want to target people under 400k why did they vote agsinst codidying it into law via the Crapo act?*********

Odds are they will not hire 87k, because hopefully the Republicans will gut the IRS funding when they get in.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:35:29
" Thu Aug 11 09:29:28
I love your lie about how it's aimed at the poor btw do you ever get ashamed of your endless lying dude?"

Its all cited with evidence.

Who does the IRS primarily audit? The poor.

Why would the Democrats.vote against the Crapo act if it wasn't to specifically target people under 400k? You have not answered that.
nhill
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:38:37
What does the IRS primarily audit? EITC

Why does IRS primarily audit EITC? It's easy to audit

Who claims EITC on their tax returns? Poor people

^this is the correct chain of causation, as far as has been presented in this thread and shared links.

Logically, it does mean poor people get audited more. But it's important to understand why.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:40:01
Nhill, We are in agreement, they target low hanging fruit, (EITC) which does mean though that they primarily audit the poor.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:41:06
Nhill, We are in agreement, they target low hanging fruit, (EITC) which does mean though that they primarily audit the poor.

My complaint is that its sold as they are going after millionaires and billionaires primarily, and that's a lie, they don't collect the EITC which is meant for the poor.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:41:07
Nhill, We are in agreement, they target low hanging fruit, (EITC) which does mean though that they primarily audit the poor.

My complaint is that its sold as they are going after millionaires and billionaires primarily, and that's a lie, they don't collect the EITC which is meant for the poor.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 09:49:52
I think its also important to note that the super wealthy often have legal options to reduce taxation and can afford to hire people to do that for them.

But it does result in enforcement primarily targeting lower income households.

Just as the minimum wage act was shown did not intentionally discriminate against blacks, but because at the time they were a larger portion of unskilled labour it resulted in more blacks losing their jobs.

Which lead Milton Friedman to labeling it the most racist law on the books (paraphrased)
nhill
Member
Thu Aug 11 10:05:31
Yeah the political posturing is just that. No politician wants to be audited.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Aug 11 10:36:18
Habebe making stupid shit up. Irs was chronically understaffed under trump. Auditing lower-class households is easy nor do they care that much because so little money is involved. They need those resources to go after billionaires tax-evading because those billionaires have so many people to help them.

Fucking repeating yourself after having proven wrong and wrong again is not admirable no matter how much Trump did and does it.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 11:02:31
Dukhat, What evidence do you have to support the notion that the IRS will now be targeting the 600 or so billionaires?

Why not codify that in law and support the Crapo amendment?
Dukhat
Member
Thu Aug 11 15:33:33
Trump helped defunded and destaffed the agency. The 87000 is not net new agents but total employees. It sets staffing levels to where they were a decade ago before Republicans started denuding the government of staff as a backdoor to their kleptocracy.

So none of your questions merit an answer. This is only to undo Republican damage.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 18:07:06
Cop out.^
kargen
Member
Thu Aug 11 19:01:45
While President Trump was in office the IRS lost about 5,000 employees. The 87,000 actually is new employees not just enough to get to 87,000. The 87,000 is incremental though and will in part replace employees that will be retiring in the next few years.
So no the IRS isn't getting 87,000 new employees all at once but they are eventually getting 87,000 and their total number of employees will be greater than 87,000.
Brings up the question, why the need for all the additional funding if a lot of these new employees are replacing current employees. A huge chunk of the funds is being allocated to enforcement so they must be intending on going after someone. Traditionally that someone is the mid to low middle class.
The IRS isn't going to go after billionaires other than when they want the publicity of a high profile case and they know well ahead of time the billionaire is going to be willing to settle.

History often repeats and the history of the IRS is to go after the little people. It takes very little of their resources because the little guys can't fight back and you can hit thousands of them at a time.
murder
Member
Thu Aug 11 19:56:28

Simple solution: Pay your fucking taxes. If people paid their taxes like good citizens, we wouldn't need a massive agency to investigate their bullshit and track down their money.

Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 11 20:57:33
Simple solution: Stop breaking the fucking law. If people didn't break the law like good citizens, we wouldn't need massive agencies to arrest & incarerate their asses and track down their money.

Over fund then police so they can stop shooting black people and they can go after the better armed white ppl.
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 12 06:54:31
Apparently the IRS has edited their recruitment page and removed part of the job description that said "Willing to use deadly force, to collect taxes"
Jesse Malcolm Barack
Member
Fri Aug 12 10:34:46
Habebes lies officially fact checked

http://www...y-false-claim-about-army-8700/

not all of the hires would be auditors, or work in enforcement. The report said the money would go toward many things, including "hiring new specialized enforcement staff, modernizing antiquated information technology, and investing in meaningful taxpayer service."

Although the agency’s staff would increase, it’s key to note that over half of the IRS workforce is close to retirement. The plan was created with that exodus in mind and aims to hire thousands of people to simply maintain current levels. Today, the IRS has about 80,000 employees.

"The IRS will lose about 50,000 people over the next five or six years," said Natasha Sarin, Treasury’s counselor for tax policy and implementation. "A lot of this hiring is about replacing those people."
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 12 10:36:34
JMB has never looked at any of my cites.
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 12 10:38:30
Why do you continue to put words in my mouth, I never said evert penny was going to hire enforcement agents.

Bit by far the largest share.

It's literally specified by amoints in my cite using IRS data.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share