Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

accountingtoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–319 of 319 posts

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

#311

Post by groby_b »

conanbatt wrote: post #265
groby_b wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only you could appreciate that it was * founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests * that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure * 200+ years have passed since, and we've gone past horse-drawn carriages

> that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure This is incorrect as England was providing military services to the American colony. Adam smith implies that the cost of the military was actually higher than the taxes collected.

That's... an interesting definition of infrastructure.

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

#312

Post by conanbatt »

groby_b wrote: post #311
conanbatt wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that 5% tax wasn't going towards US infrastructure This is incorrect as England was providing military services to the American colony. Adam smith implies that the cost of the military was actually higher than the taxes collected.

That's... an interesting definition of infrastructure.

What a specific part of the government budget to focus on to justify faxes. Its not even 4% of the expenditures of the federal government.

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

#313

Post by save_ferris »

alt_f4 wrote: post #308
save_ferris wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose basic services you use every day (i.e. infrastructure) are paid for if not through taxes?

pay as you go, like tolls

How would that work for something like the Hanford nuclear contamination zone[0], which threatens the water supply for millions of Americans? The cost to clean up the contamination has run into the billions, and yet there's no apparent private incentive to clean up this mess. If the market doesn't present a solution, are those millions of Americans just screwed?

How would you effectively pay for services that maintain the community behind the scenes, i.e. police and fire department? Swipe a card every time they show up?

How would we pay for the military without taxes? Just sell contracts to private security firms? How do we hold those firms accountable when they commit war crimes, as we recently saw from a former Blackwater contractor[1]? But then how do we pay for the justice system to hold those accountable if not through tax revenue? Make it so only those who can pay can participate?

0: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hanford-cost-20161216-s...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/us/politics/blackwater-ni...

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

#314

Post by tempestn »

pnutjam wrote: post #304
tempestn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly agree with you that it isn't a good model for local law enforcement. The main reason being that there are many areas where we expect police to exercise some discretion. Speed limits being the main one that comes to mind—for whatever reason, speed limits are set at a level that the majority of the population do not follow to the letter, and we consider it unreasonable for police to issue tickets for drivin…

Maybe offtopic, but why should we expect police to exercise discretion? That's how you end up with disproportionate crime being prosecuted in neighborhoods of color. I think laws should be simple and enforced. For example, raise speed limits so they are high enough that nobody has a reason to routinely break them, then draconian enforcement. Old white Grandpa weaving around should get the same penalty as young Black…

I don't disagree, but until and unless all laws (not just speed limits) are written with sensible exceptions and thresholds included, police and prosecutorial discretion are the only avenues we have to create a semblance of reasonableness.

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

#315

Post by conanbatt »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #130
conanbatt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Those sick of a 35% income tax on earnings over $45,000".

I'm literally upset at the US for being so closed for immigration. If it were just a little more lax it would have a lot more than what it has now.

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

#316

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pnutjam wrote: post #309
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we shouldn't care about overhead costs imposed on taxpayers because we don't care about overhead costs imposed on taxpayers? If you're not aware, the reason we don't have "some sort of easy file card" isn't any choice by the IRS, it's a choice by Congress at the behest of the tax preparation industry.

Yes, and Congress is also the one who makes decisions about funding audits, no?

I still don't understand what your point is. The reason they don't want easy file cards is that corruption is most common when there is a centralized benefit and decentralized cost, because then the kleptocrats will spend more resources to make things that way than the average person will to prevent it. For audits it's the opposite, because for most people there is negligible benefit but it's a major cost to innocent people who are subject to an audit, so you get real opposition to them. That's the politics of it, but what does that have anything to do with what the best policy is?

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

#317

Post by alt_f4 »

save_ferris wrote: post #313
alt_f4 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pay as you go, like tolls

How would that work for something like the Hanford nuclear contamination zone[0], which threatens the water supply for millions of Americans? The cost to clean up the contamination has run into the billions, and yet there's no apparent private incentive to clean up this mess. If the market doesn't present a solution, are those millions of Americans just screwed? How would you effectively pay for services that maintai…

Re. the nuclear thing: so you're saying you need govt funding to solve a problem created by the govt?

Also, you are overestimating my desire to pay for foreign military adventures. Your point about the police is actually great: the quality of customer service is so bad, racist and ineffective, that if they were a private enterprise, they'd have gone bankrupt.

Generally, I'm not saying the govt should have no role in things, I'm just in favor of reducing its current involvement by about 80%, along with the productivity it robs from workers and business.

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

#318

Post by jacquesm »

DanBC wrote: post #295
jacquesm wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax is levied on the businesses who collect it on behalf of the government, it is a direct function of the amount of the invoice. So if you charge your customer less for your goods or services the tax paid goes down. VAT is short for 'Value Added Tax', in other words that which a business produces. But if your business provides no value then magically you still have to charge VAT, so clearly there is a relationsh…

Businesses collect it, but it's not levied on businesses. How do you explain the fact that businesses can reclaim VAT they've paid, but consumers can't? The only explanation is that VAT is a tax paid by consumers, not by businesses.

Because if they could not reclaim it you would get VAT on VAT on VAT for every step in the value chain. The idea is to only impose it on the last step when the total value is known.

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

#319

Post by slantaclaus »

sbochins wrote: post #252

From reading the comments, I really wonder how many HN Users are tax evaders. I see the top two comments are “the tax code is too complicated, we shouldn’t be going after tax evaders” and “this isn’t actually a big problem.” If the government is getting more money collecting unreported taxes than it costs to fund the collecting of said taxes, what’s the problem?

The tax code is too complicated, which, so NPR tells me, is mostly Intuit’s fault
Post reply on HN