IRS budget cuts cost $34.3B in lost revenue from big business • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by inetknght » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

rando444 wrote: post #101

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read her plan to tax businesses with $100m in profit is easily sidestepped by spinning off child-subsidiaries of your businesses right around that $100m mark and report back "womp womp, no over $100m profits here".

If businesses started creating child companies (for any reason) it would result in substantial job creation.. so this sounds like a win-win to me.

I don't see any guarantee here that splitting a business will create jobs.

1) Business A has 1B in profits with X number of employees, gets taxed.

2) Business B splits into 10 businesses with 100M in profits and X/10 number of employees per business unit, and doesn't get taxes.

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

#112

Post by cptskippy » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

xadhominemx wrote: post #92

cptskippy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complexity is by design to make it harder to audit and easier to hide cheating. Given clear and straightforward code/laws, it becomes hard to cheat.

That is absolutely not true. Much of the complexity of the tax code is present in order to clearly prescribe rules in edge case situations in order to reduce judgement calls that would inevitably tilt in favor of the filer.

The complexity isn't driven by the IRS, they've been pushing for simplification but lobbyist for businesses push for rules changes, and lobbyists for the tax filing industry push for rules to solidify the need for their industry.

Just like Healthcare and Gun control, there are industries and 3rd parties with vested interests in keeping the system complicated and hard to track or enforce so they can profit.

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

#113

Post by salawat » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #85

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

> founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests This meme needs to die. Nobody was sitting around saying "You know what will make me richer, a decade of war with England and if we win followed up with several decades of poor trade relations". The wealthy landowners who founded this country were very much going all in on a bet where the possible outcomes were lose everything or break even. The…

I second this. Also, read the Declaration of Independence. It is quite succinctly stated the long list of grievances that led to the founding.

Of course, actually taking that into context takes away some of the dopamine hit from trying to spread the elite hatred that is currently in vogue.

I'm not even saying there is anything wrong with disliking the elite now; just keep in mind then is then, and now is now. The issues are of course going to be different, even if there may be a shred of commonality to them.

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

#114

Post by kortilla » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #64

griffinkelly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it's particularly egregious because the part in control while the budget has been broken has classically been the one to strongly advocate for a balanced budget - and will probably start advocating as soon as they fall out of power. Granted, both parties are terrible when it comes to corporate interest so... they both suck - but one really has a strong tendency to advocate for balancing the books.

The budget has been broken with both sides in control. There is no longer a political motivation to actually balance the budget now that there is no way for the government to really run out of money any time soon.

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

#115

Post by tempestn » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #77

nostromo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, we've been in a state for decades where a $1 increase in IRS budget results in more than $1 in income, yet their budget has continued to be cut. I'm all for closing down those well-known loopholes, but that doesn't mean there won't be loopholes, or just people/companies not paying what they owe. At this stage, those of us that ARE paying our taxes are the ones being taken advantage of.

Exactly. It seems obvious that you would want at the very least to fund the agency to the point where you no longer see a marginal profit for each dollar spent. At that point you're still very far from maximizing taxes collected.

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

#116

Post by wuliwong » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #31

txsoftwaredev wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

because they were abusing their tax exempt status. But that's the part you probably don't like to say out loud.

Do you have a source for this?

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

#117

Post by sseveran » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:57 PM UTC

alanwil2 wrote: post #61

Amazon doesn't pay taxes despite being worth $793 billion. How can I do this?

One of the reasons (among many) is the expense treatment of stock based compensation was changed I believe as part of Sarbanes-Oxley. Companies are now required to expense stock given as compensation since it will have a dilutive effect on existing shareholders. Amazon issue billions of dollars in stock each year to its employees. Amazon also operates high cashflow but low margin businesses which make its net income very small. The company has emphasized free cash flow to investors for at least 20 years.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/stock-...

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

#118

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

adventist wrote: post #59

davinic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you be against other people getting the subsidy?

I'm just trying to figure out if it's hypocrisy or selfishness.

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

#119

Post by kortilla » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #71

conanbatt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not liking taxes: that is liking taxes on others.

No, it's appreciating society where everyone puts in according to their ability to make something we can all enjoy. I'm fine with people who are unable to contribute putting less in, I'm not fine with people who exploit the system - and before some BS about welfare queens gets injected... I also care about scale, the amount of missed revenue from corporate taxes far outweighs how people below the poverty line are abl…

>puts in according to their ability

That’s sales speak for “others should pay even proportionally more than me”.

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

#120

Post by munk-a » Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #85

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

> founded by wealthy landowners interested in protecting their interests This meme needs to die. Nobody was sitting around saying "You know what will make me richer, a decade of war with England and if we win followed up with several decades of poor trade relations". The wealthy landowners who founded this country were very much going all in on a bet where the possible outcomes were lose everything or break even. The…

> "You know what will make me richer, a decade of war with England and if we win followed up with several decades of poor trade relations"

Yea, that'd be silly, instead it was "You know what, the crown isn't listening to us and we're ineligible to be lords like those fat cats in england proper, let's throw a big to-do and get invited back in at a proper rank with representation."