Like him or not, Biden has gotten more legislation passed than Trump or Obama, and he's only been in office for less than 2 years.

 

I honestly can't imagine how retarded you have to be to support a massive expansion of the IRS. I can only imagine they'll be studying this time period hundreds of years from now and shaking their heads in disbelief.  

FWIW, in 2000 the IRS had 100k FTEs. In 2020 it was like 76k.

Like it or not in a functioning nation you need something filling the role of the IRS, and over the last 20 years or so it's been very hollowed out. I've had enough dealings with them to know how understaffed they are.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But we need an agency dedicated to enforcing tax laws that are on the books, and the IRS is simply incapable of doing that.

(cue the "riot whatever" and "oh look at this ishlib supporting tax increases" predictable stupidity )

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

FWIW, in 2000 the IRS had 100k FTEs. In 2020 it was like 76k.

Like it or not in a functioning nation you need something filling the role of the IRS, and over the last 20 years or so it's been very hollowed out. I've had enough dealings with them to know how understaffed they are.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But we need an agency dedicated to enforcing tax laws that are on the books, and the IRS is simply incapable of doing that.

(cue the "riot whatever" and "oh look at this ishlib supporting tax increases" predictable stupidity )

lmfao

Republicans: "WE DON'T NEED NEW LAWS, ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS!"

Democrats expand enforcement of tax laws

Republicans: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Republicans: "WE DON'T NEED NEW LAWS, ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS!"

Democrats expand enforcement of tax laws

Republicans: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

i think it's been clear for a long time that repugs don't really stand for anything. they just like to obstruct & scream about sheet.  their low-info, poorly educated base eats that nonsense up. 

24 minutes ago, Kz! said:

 

I honestly can't imagine how retarded you have to be to support a massive expansion of the IRS. I can only imagine they'll be studying this time period hundreds of years from now and shaking their heads in disbelief.  

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

lolbertarian on why doubling the size of the IRS is actually a good thing.   

It's a cult of the dumbest people on the planet. 

2 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

i think it's been clear for a long time that repugs don't really stand for anything. they just like to obstruct & scream about sheet.  their low-info, poorly educated base eats that nonsense up. 

What do democrats stand for?

7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Republicans: "WE DON'T NEED NEW LAWS, ENFORCE THE ONES ON THE BOOKS!"

Democrats expand enforcement of tax laws

Republicans: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

Riot Kitchen coming in hot with the very moderate take that massive expansion of the IRS is a good thing. Shocking stance, really thought you might go the other way on this one.  

if the IRS was rightsized it wouldn't be an issue. it's undersized. that's just reality.

it's great for those who want to get away with not fulfilling their tax obligations. my accountant certainly seems to have played that angle in terms of how aggressively he pursues certain tax savings given some of the complexities I've foisted upon myself.

27 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Riot Kitchen coming in hot with the very moderate take that massive expansion of the IRS is a good thing. Shocking stance, really thought you might go the other way on this one.  

Surely you're up to 150 at this point.

50 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Riot Kitchen coming in hot with the very moderate take that massive expansion of the IRS is a good thing. Shocking stance, really thought you might go the other way on this one.  

Let us not forget which President and from what party weaponized the IRS to attack political opponents in his second term and who was the Vice President at the time?

So it's all good as long as you are a Democrat who supports corruption.....

 

Can someone help understand the downside of the IRS having more people to catch tax cheats?

1 hour ago, Ipiggles said:

Let us not forget which President and from what party weaponized the IRS to attack political opponents in his second term and who was the Vice President at the time?

So it's all good as long as you are a Democrat who supports corruption.....

 

except an audit under Trump's IRS showed that the IRS was not "weaponized" and that non-profits from all over the political spectrum were targeted: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf

not that you'll update your narrative because of something as trivial as facts.

5 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Can someone help understand the downside of the IRS having more people to catch tax cheats?

Yeah it can and will be abused like Obama did just a few years ago.  

"Tax cheats" is Im sure their 100% laser focus

Of course theyll target people and investigate them until they can nab them for jaywalking or whatever.  Or just pick and choose who gets to cheat and who pays for their "crimes"

 

If you would have said this 5 years ago every, single, one of is would have agreed its stupid to expand the IRS like this.

2 hours ago, Kz! said:

lolbertarian on why doubling the size of the IRS is actually a good thing.   

It's a cult of the dumbest people on the planet. 

Prior to TDS Gannan would have ish his pants about this, but now its great because he can post a meme to pretend his mental health isn't irreparably broken

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

except an audit under Trump's IRS showed that the IRS was not "weaponized" and that non-profits from all over the political spectrum were targeted: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf

not that you'll update your narrative because of something as trivial as facts.

"The IRS investigated itself and found no wrong-doing."

Retarded people: Good enough for me! 

 

41 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Can someone help understand the downside of the IRS having more people to catch tax cheats?

Because that's not how it actually works. Government enforcement agencies face zero repercussions for losing cases, or investigating legitimate actions. They simply crawl up your arse, make you spend millions defending yourself and hope to cajole you into a settlement. Hell, the SEC's entire business model at this point is basically a mafia like shakedown operation. When they lose...you can't sue to get your costs reimbursed. 

There's 2 ways to solve this. 

1. Stop having a ridiculous tax code full of insane giveaways put forward by legislators in attempts to favor certain constituents. Spoiler alert -- those paying the taxes are always going to be much smarter than those writing the code and will find every unintended consequence and exploit it.  

2. Make government enforcement entities liable for defense costs when they lose or choose not to bring an enforcement action. 

Or, maybe we could just, you know, get rid of deductions. 

We're long overdue for a 1986 style tax reform bill.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

We're long overdue for a 1986 style tax reform bill.

Can't happen because that would require acknowledging that we already have the most graduated income tax system in the developed world where roughly 50% pay nothing. And yet still somehow complain.

22 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Can't happen because that would require acknowledging that we already have the most graduated income tax system in the developed world where roughly 50% pay nothing. And yet still somehow complain.

complaints are rooted more in the "that guy is doing way better than I am, we need to tax the ish out of him to take him down a notch or two"

it is always humorous to me to see people living below the median for whatever region complain about taxes and then point to Europe as some kind of example. like, **** you know their tax code is way more regressive don't you?

you could simplify America's tax code AND align it more with Europe's with two simple changes:

1. you only really need like two tax brackets. no taxes up to say $10k, some percentage up to the median, and another percentage for dollars over the median. if you want a progressive income tax code fine whatever, but keeping it simple mathematically gets you to 90% of what the current tax bracket structure does with a much easier calculation. I'd index it to the median income, and say up to 20% of the median you have no taxes, 20-50% of the median you pay a flat say 12%, then over 50% you pay a flat 20%.

2. add a national sales or value-added tax. exclude essentials if want, but we're trying to simplify so let's not get too freaking crazy.

 

this is off the cuff and I've not thought it all through or considered optimal tax policies, but if your goal is to be roughly revenue neutral, simplify, and align more with Europe that gets you there as an academic exercise. and all you near/under median poors would end up paying way more.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

complaints are rooted more in the "that guy is doing way better than I am, we need to tax the ish out of him to take him down a notch or two"

it is always humorous to me to see people living below the median for whatever region complain about taxes and then point to Europe as some kind of example. like, **** you know their tax code is way more regressive don't you?

you could simplify America's tax code AND align it more with Europe's with two simple changes:

1. you only really need like two tax brackets. no taxes up to say $10k, some percentage up to the median, and another percentage for dollars over the median. if you want a progressive income tax code fine whatever, but keeping it simple mathematically gets you to 90% of what the current tax bracket structure does with a much easier calculation. I'd index it to the median income, and say up to 20% of the median you have no taxes, 20-50% of the median you pay a flat say 12%, then over 50% you pay a flat 20%.

2. add a national sales or value-added tax. exclude essentials if want, but we're trying to simplify so let's not get too freaking crazy.

 

this is off the cuff and I've not thought at all about optimal tax policies, but if your goal is to be roughly revenue neutral, simplify, and align more with Europe that gets you there as an academic exercise. and all you near/under median poors would end up paying way more.

Yeah, but then the tax base would actually be robust and spread out. And all those people paying nothing will be forced to start paying into the system...so that's not happening.