Policing Tax Evasion Could Save Billions, But Republicans Won't Fund Enforcement

[Back]

Policing Tax Evasion Could Save Billions, But Republicans Won't Fund Enforcement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/irs-budget-cuts-deficit_n_850243.html)


The U.S. government loses around $300 billion in revenue each year because of tax cheats, some of whom hide their earnings in offshore accounts or disguise them using complicated business structures, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Since 2001, tax evasion has cost as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the 2009 stimulus combined, according to the financial-services analysis firm The Motley Fool.

In February, the Obama administration requested $339.3 million in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service in 2012 to chase this costly tax evasion. According to the IRS, that extra funding would be paid back twice over with the additional revenue brought in through enforcement.

Most outside economists agree.

"There is no question that the IRS agents are able to produce enough extra revenue to be a good return on that investment," said Wayne Angell, a conservative economist who is a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board and has previously worked for Bear Stearns.

Yet instead of supporting increased enforcement, the GOP has been trying to cut IRS funding. In March, the House GOP sought to strip $600 million from the IRS budget as part of the continuing budget resolution. IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman told a house subcommittee those cuts would cost the government $4 billion in lost revenue. The final budget deal left the tax collection agency's annualized budget unchanged at $12.1 billion, $486 million less than the Obama administration had requested.




Gee, I wonder who benefits most from not policing tax evasion?

[Tgo01]

I thought I was going to read a post stating if we increased IRS funding by a few hundred million we could see an increase of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Y'know, that's kind of how the title reads.

Instead if we increase IRS funding by 339.3 million dollars they can double that? Doesn't sound like a very efficient organization.

[Wowfool]

Not to mention the increased excess of IRS heavy handedness, bullying, and outright abuse of power. If you really want to increase revenue simplify the tax code, reduce or eliminate deductions, and make it not require a CPA firm to file taxes.

Besides, isn't it the current administration with continual difficulty finding people to fill cabinet positions who have not had tax problems?

Republicans are pushing smaller government for once, increasing the size of the IRS would not contribute to that goal.

[crb]

Taxes, a really complicated math problem the government makes you do to find out how much you owe them, and if you get it wrong they throw you in jail.

[Parkbandit]

Gee, I wonder who benefits most from not policing tax evasion?

http://www.nesarasucks.com/rangel2.jpg

[Tgo01]

http://www.nesarasucks.com/rangel2.jpg

Winner!

[4a6c1]

I was thinking.

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[Back]

What really confuses me is the very first line.


House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) admitted on Monday that the federal government is in serious need of extra revenue.

So, we need extra revenue, but we also need to cut spending and cut taxes?

[WRoss]

What really confuses me is the very first line.



So, we need extra revenue, but we also need to cut spending and cut taxes?

Yes, cutting taxes can generate revenue. How do you create a job?

[Back]

Yes, cutting taxes can generate revenue. How do you create a job?

Start a business.

[LMingrone]

LLCs cost next to nothing .::wink:::

[Keller]

Rumor out of Washington is that Obama plans to repeal subchapter K.

Time for me to start studying up on subchapter C.

Fuck.

[crb]

What really confuses me is the very first line.



So, we need extra revenue, but we also need to cut spending and cut taxes?

When Bush originally cut taxes, revenue went up.

[Parkbandit]

What really confuses me is the very first line.

So, we need extra revenue, but we also need to cut spending and cut taxes?

The government doesn't need more revenue, they need to stop spending like drunken housewives on vacation.

[WRoss]

Start a business.

And when 35% (assuming you'd somehow be able to make over $10,000,000), not including state tax, of your profit is taxes, how are you going to be able to hire as many people as your originally planned? Is that money going to be circulated throughout the economy?

[crb]

The government doesn't need more revenue, they need to stop spending like drunken housewives on vacation.

This, too.

Historically, the average tax burdern is like 19% of GDP, no matter what the rates, higher rates bring diminishing returns and even when the "rich" had a top rate of 70%, it brought in 19% of GDPish.

Meanwhile, the highest spending, ever, in the post WWII pre-Obama period was 20.6% of GDP.

Obama's first 2012 budget spent 25% of GDP, I haven't seen figures on his second budget. I don't think he has really released anything specific yet. He just had that one vague campaign speech.

We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

I hope, hope, hope, hope, hope, the GOP can attach spending restrictions to the debt ceiling limit. Cap spending at 20.6% of GDP unless overidden by a 2/3rds majority in BOTH the house and senate, I'd even say a 3/4ths majority. This would be such a beautiful thing. If we had this, I wouldn't even mind if the bush tax cuts expired, because I'd feel like the massive amount of money I pay in taxes at least had some restraint on it being spent.

So in a time of war or other emergency, congress could still act to allow the government to spend more, but regular budgets would be permanently limited to a portion of GDP small enough to make sure our government stops growing and sucking up more of our economy like that planet in Transformers: The Movie (animated).

[Keller]

When Bush originally cut taxes, revenue went up.

Do you understand why?

[Keller]

This, too.

Historically, the average tax burdern is like 19% of GDP, no matter what the rates, higher rates bring diminishing returns and even when the "rich" had a top rate of 70%, it brought in 19% of GDPish.

Meanwhile, the highest spending, ever, in the post WWII pre-Obama period was 20.6% of GDP.

Obama's first 2012 budget spent 25% of GDP, I haven't seen figures on his second budget. I don't think he has really released anything specific yet. He just had that one vague campaign speech.

We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

I hope, hope, hope, hope, hope, the GOP can attach spending restrictions to the debt ceiling limit. Cap spending at 20.6% of GDP unless overidden by a 2/3rds majority in BOTH the house and senate, I'd even say a 3/4ths majority. This would be such a beautiful thing. If we had this, I wouldn't even mind if the bush tax cuts expired, because I'd feel like the massive amount of money I pay in taxes at least had some restraint on it being spent.

So in a time of war or other emergency, congress could still act to allow the government to spend more, but regular budgets would be permanently limited to a portion of GDP small enough to make sure our government stops growing and sucking up more of our economy like that planet in Transformers: The Movie (animated).

I knew you couldn't go a post without reminding us HOW RICH CRB IS!!!

[Back]

And when 35% (assuming you'd somehow be able to make over $10,000,000), not including state tax, of your profit is taxes, how are you going to be able to hire as many people as your originally planned? Is that money going to be circulated throughout the economy?

By being fiscally responsible with the rest of my money.

I already pay around 35% of my income as taxes now and I do not own and operate a business so it stands to reason that I would make ends meet as I already do now.

[Parkbandit]

By being fiscally responsible with the rest of my money.

I already pay around 35% of my income as taxes now and I do not own and operate a business so it stands to reason that I would make ends meet as I already do now.

How did you come about the 35% number?

[Back]

How did you come about the 35% number?

The IRS wants me to pay $600 and change for around $2000 and change I did not report last year. In fact, thats what pissed me off enough to start this thread.

I’m tired of hearing how bad off rich people are when it comes to taxes. Its bullshit.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought I was going to read a post stating if we increased IRS funding by a few hundred million we could see an increase of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Y'know, that's kind of how the title reads.

Instead if we increase IRS funding by 339.3 million dollars they can double that? Doesn't sound like a very efficient organization.100% return on investment sounds pretty good to me. Certainly 100,000% would be better, but 100% is a good place to start.

[Parkbandit]

The IRS wants me to pay $600 and change for around $2000 and change I did not report last year.

That's not "paying 35% of my income as taxes".. that's getting caught trying to not pay taxes on $2,000 and getting penalized for it.


In fact, thats what pissed me off enough to start this thread.

So, you got caught by the IRS for not reporting income.. and you now want to have more IRS agents hired? Why, so they catch you sooner?



I’m tired of hearing how bad off rich people are when it comes to taxes. Its bullshit.

LOL. ok.

[Back]

That's not "paying 35% of my income as taxes".. that's getting caught trying to not pay taxes on $2,000 and getting penalized for it.

So, you got caught by the IRS for not reporting income.. and you now want to have more IRS agents hired? Why, so they catch you sooner?

LOL. ok.

Slow down there champ. I was not trying to get away with not paying taxes. Without getting to detailed it was income I overlooked and if anything I am kicking myself for not having done my taxes properly.

According to the article the republicans want to reduce the budget of the IRS which could mean less resources available to deal with real tax fraud. That coupled with my willingness to pay my share leaves me angry at the people and corporations who jump through loopholes or get away with outright fraud to avoid theirs.

And saying that reducing taxes on the wealthy, which has been brought up in this thread, seems to me to be bogus as many major corporations build factories and hire in other countries.

[Parkbandit]

Slow down there champ. I was not trying to get away with not paying taxes. Without getting to detailed it was income I overlooked and if anything I am kicking myself for not having done my taxes properly.

Isn't that exactly what anyone who didn't report income would say?



According to the article the republicans want to reduce the budget of the IRS which could mean less resources available to deal with real tax fraud.

Pretty sure the Republicans are against bigger government.. which means hiring less in all departments.. including the IRS.



That coupled with my willingness to pay my share leaves me angry at the people and corporations who jump through loopholes or get away with outright fraud to avoid theirs.

Willingness? You mean, you received a notice from the IRS stating that you didn't report your income correctly and that you must now pay a penalty? You mean that willingness?



And saying that reducing taxes on the wealthy, which has been brought up in this thread, seems to me to be bogus as many major corporations build factories and hire in other countries.

So, you want to punish all companies because a very small percentage of the companies in America decide to build factories and hire employees in other countries?

[Tgo01]

100% return on investment sounds pretty good to me. Certainly 100,000% would be better, but 100% is a good place to start.

Yes, let's give the IRS 150 billion dollars so they can collect the 300 billion dollars the US loses every year in tax revenues. Of course this is just an estimate from the IRS themselves too, for all we know we'll give them an extra 300 million dollars and they'll only manage to pull in an extra 400 million in tax revenues.


Slow down there champ. I was not trying to get away with not paying taxes. Without getting to detailed it was income I overlooked and if anything I am kicking myself for not having done my taxes properly.

According to the article the republicans want to reduce the budget of the IRS which could mean less resources available to deal with real tax fraud.

Real tax fraud, like people have never used the "I MEANT to report that income..." bit before.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, let's give the IRS 150 billion dollars so they can collect the 300 billion dollars the US loses every year in tax revenues. Of course this is just an estimate from the IRS themselves too, for all we know we'll give them an extra 300 million dollars and they'll only manage to pull in an extra 400 million in tax revenues.Not really sure where you're going with this. You seem to find the idea disagreeable in some way, but I'm not sure how or why. Any policing force needs sufficient funding to function. That's what sufficient means, after all.

[Tgo01]

Not really sure where you're going with this. You seem to find the idea disagreeable in some way, but I'm not sure how or why. Any policing force needs sufficient funding to function. That's what sufficient means, after all.

I guess we differ on what 'sufficient' means in this particular case. Handing over an extra 300 million dollars to the IRS when they themselves say they'll only double it just doesn't seem very efficient to me. The article doesn't even say what they intend to do with that 300 million dollars.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of increasing funding to the IRS but some accountability for a change would be nice. Here's 300 million dollars, turn it into an extra 600 million dollars a year like you say you can and then we'll go from there, otherwise you'll lose that funding and more.

Hell even then I see a problem with it, by giving them more and more funding they'll just do the bare minimum work to keep the funds rolling in without getting more efficient on their own. I hate people.

[Kembal]

I guess we differ on what 'sufficient' means in this particular case. Handing over an extra 300 million dollars to the IRS when they themselves say they'll only double it just doesn't seem very efficient to me. The article doesn't even say what they intend to do with that 300 million dollars.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of increasing funding to the IRS but some accountability for a change would be nice. Here's 300 million dollars, turn it into an extra 600 million dollars a year like you say you can and then we'll go from there, otherwise you'll lose that funding and more.

Hell even then I see a problem with it, by giving them more and more funding they'll just do the bare minimum work to keep the funds rolling in without getting more efficient on their own. I hate people.

Could be they're sandbagging. Saying you'll only achieve double and then actually getting way more than that is a good way to underpromise and overdeliver.

[Parkbandit]

Could be they're sandbagging. Saying you'll only achieve double and then actually getting way more than that is a good way to underpromise and overdeliver.

Yea.. because the government is always doing that.. underpromising and overdelivering........................

Did you really just post that with a straight face?