381
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
381 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1884 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
...and it only cost $80B to do it. 🙄
The $80 billion is spread over 10 years, and Republicans have already reduced that by $20 billion. Also, that's the total increase in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, whereas this $1 billion recovered is only one success story of many. Please don't make such misleading statements.
From a linked article. I'm not sure how much the "archaic taxpayer services system" costs, but my comment is accurate.
Your comment is technically accurate, but leaves out context and relevant information, which makes it misleading. My comment is accurate as well.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, pal.
bro hurt 🍼
Your comment would be accurate if it cost them $80B to recover $1B.
Your own quote points out:
Which makes your comments misleading, not accurate.
So in other words it cost $8b to recover $1b? And this is seen as a good thing?!?! That make as much sense as toilet paper math
Economists at Harvard studied a four year period and concluded the IRS gains $4.25 for every $1 spent on auditing wealthiest tax payers.
I wonder if the IRS can immediately recover funds with a magic wand or if it's a protracted, investigative process.
https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tax-audits-recover-12-dollars-for-every-dollar-spent-2023-6
Obviously the minute $80b was allocated, the IRS should have immediately brought in $340b, that's how math works, right?? /s
Seriously though, outside of the direct revenue claimed by this, having a well funded IRS sets a precedent to be honest on taxes. If people know the IRS is understaffed, and hear about billionaires (and former presidents) paying nothing in taxes, why should the average American feel they should be honest and pay their fair share? Only time will tell, but we can look back and see if reported tax payments increased significantly because of IRS funding, outside of money brought in from audits.
You are deliberately oversimplifying this to make a conservative talking point. Stop it. We all know what you’re doing. Take this crap back to /r/conservative. They thrive on overly reduced, flippant one liners that validate their worldview.
If the program costs $80B, then it costs $80B. And it's taken in...well, lemme check my records...$1B.
Sorry if my brain can't do the mental hula hoops it takes to calculate that any other way.
The IRS cost $16B total to operate in 2023. Federal tax revenue in 2023 was $4.44T.
This idea that you're trying to project, that funding the IRS is somehow not worth the cost, is absolutely bonkers.
That's not what the article says. I'm just reading and quoting.
Yes. But as soon as you realize you've left out important information or someone else adds important information, it's important to accept that into your reasoning. It seemed like you were fighting back at them in your replies, and doubling down on your initial claims which you now know weren't complete. You weren't wrong with the information you had at the time when you commented, but it made you look stubborn by not being willing to accept new information or learn. Just my two cents as an outsider.
Your quote states they get $80b over ten years. How many years has it been? You got this!
To be fair, if it costs 80b in 10 years and has only been implemented for 2 years, then it only cost 16b to recover 1b.
Listen, I'm just reading and quoting. Take it up with the writer.
No you're not, you're quoting in a misleading way, you are drawing your own (incorrect) conclusion that recovering 1b cost 80b which is patently incorrect even in the bit of the article you quoted and you refuse to engage anyone who is poining out that you're wrong using good faith arguments, instead saying you're "just reading and quoting" which is the equivalent of covering your ears and going "LALALA".
Lol you're funne u should grk fakmo lmao
Say whaaaa??
you may be an idiot, but that guy is having a stroke. In his heart or penis, I'm not sure which.
Agreed! It'd be MUCH BETTER if we used that 80B to PAY for those Millionaire's and Billionaire's Yachts INSTEAD of collecting over a BILLION in less then a Year!