Live data from Hacker News

IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

accountingtoday.com

51–60 of 319 posts

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#51
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a faction of US politicians that are philosophically against (most) government and taxes. It's not about ROI, it's about their goals.

Interesting. A faction you say? You mean like the faction that drafted the Articles of Confederation?

Ah, yes. The failed constitution.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#52
The Obama administration proved that tax agencies can be used as agents of political censorship. The power of government to censor political speech should be opposed at all levels and at all points of the political spectrum. One easy way of doing this is to reduce the size of these governmental agencies.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#53

I don't get why countries always under-invest in tax collection... as long as it's ROI positive, shouldn't budgets be getting increased?

There's a faction of US politicians that are philosophically against (most) government and taxes. It's not about ROI, it's about their goals.

This faction of the US is unique, which is why the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world and in consequences has one of the most positive balances in net immigration, specially considering it has one of the harshest immigration policies in the world.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally they don't harass people unless something seems amiss and there is a large enough discrepancy to justify it. And there's eventually a marginal tipping point where more money spent in audits won't net more recovered revenue. Generally the smaller the fry, the less you can recover from them.

Unless you were a conservative group a few years back. 'The controversy began in 2013 when an IRS official admitted the agency had been aggressively scrutinizing groups with names such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots."' https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-...

The article linked in the margin on that article says that they targeted progressive groups too, though.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#56

I don't get why countries always under-invest in tax collection... as long as it's ROI positive, shouldn't budgets be getting increased?

If 99.9% of the national income were used to gather 100% of the national income, you would have positive ROI.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#57
post #14

Greed is winning in America. Any person or political party that is trying to reduce staffing for a tax collection agency is trying to get away with tax fraud or they are working for somebody who is. It is far past the time to recognise this.

“Anyone opposing more police officers and equipment is looking to break the law.” Just as I don’t want a bored cop on every street corner, I also don’t want the IRS to be staffed to maximize revenue. It’s a balance.

The US has massive amounts of deficit spending and we're pretty far from balancing the budget. Why does the amount of lost revenue even matter?

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#58
post #3

The act of reducing the manpower of the IRS needed to enforce the laws may have a greater effect than all the tax cuts combined. If a business is fairly certain an audit isn't coming, their effective tax rate is whatever they want it to be.

Also important is what happens to a business that gets caught. If the punishment is 'pay back taxes plus a moderate penalty, and here we'll even set up a convenient payment plan for you', then cheating on taxes is effectively a free roll. You have a 95% chance of saving a ton of money, and 5% chance of paying only a bit more than you would have paid anyway if you followed the laws. That said, the absurd complexity of…

If your mistake is large enough that the penalty puts you out of business it was probably a pretty serious mistake. Or your business wasn't healthy enough to survive in the first place.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#59
post #45

And yet some people manage to whip themselves in to a righteous frenzy over someone collecting welfare or immigrants getting a microscopic bit of state aid. Such people really need to get a sense of proportion. The destitute, despised, downtrodden guy who slaves away to support their family by mowing your lawn, picking apples for you, driving you somewhere, or serving you your burger is not your enemy.

Last week I saw a person on Facebook sharing an anecdote patterned after the "welfare queen" trope and arguing against food stamps. I noticed from her Facebook page that she owned a ranching operation, so I searched her name in the EWG Farm Subsidy Database and saw that she and her husband had received $18k in subsidies in 2018, and nearly $250k since 1995.

I'm against people living off of food stamps also, and if there is a subsidy out there for the taking, then i'm going to take it. I agree that government should not be involved in either of those things, but promoting certain kinds of businesses might be worth the subsidy for some people.

Re: IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business

#60
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the people "getting away with it" in this case aren't those paying withholding or even mostly individuals... they're corporations bilking the government and every other taxpayer. It's more like cutting back on the FBI when there's an outbreak of organized crime...

The problem is Congress, not the IRS. Most corporations pay the amount of tax they owe under the law, but the law is written to allow tax evasion. The IRS can’t do anything about this. The fix is to close several well known loopholes.

Honestly I'd just like to see a minimum VAT lifetime tax, when a product reaches the USA it should be charged on value equal to a sane minimum VAT (as value added inside the country is charged) less VAT applied on a per-segment basis in supplier countries. If Bermuda has a 0% VAT and apple is adding 90% of sale value in that country by affixing a sticker... then the US should collect the money Bermuda is leaving on the table - it may not directly benefit US tax payers (since those countries with low VATs may then choose to raise them) but that should help even out the benefit of shipping a bunch of commodities to a random island to slap a sticker on - it'll encourage less globalized supply networks by removing some perverse incentives to ship the item off to every corner of the globe and... we might just help the environment while doing it.
Post reply on HN