Author Topic: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act  (Read 9412 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #150 on: August 18, 2022, 10:43:13 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52074
  • Tommy Points: -26007
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Again, more reports that the idea that this will lead to more IRS audits for regular folks is not true:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

It’s fear mongering by Republicans

Where in the bill does it say that?  What promises being made are actually binding, now or in the future?

I think you are correct that it will be more internal policy decisions than the bill itself that will determine who gets audited. For now the rhetoric seems to be focused on higher earners but of course that doesn’t seem etched in stone.  I didn’t know before reading this article that about 50,000 of the ‘new’ IRS agents will replace existing agents that will be lost to attrition.  So talking about a net increase of about 25,000 as opposed to 87,000.

Yeah, I just want people to understand what these promises mean.  If Yellen or the Director of the IRS decides tomorrow that they want the IRS to increase audits on those making over $200,000 (instead of $400,000), that can and will happen.  If Yellen gets replaced, a new Treasury secretary could order audits be increased on all Americans, or could increase the non-mandatory audit limit to $1 million, or $50 million, or to 4x the Federal poverty limit, or to whatever number they want.

Democrats shouldn't say the percentage of those audited in the middle class won't change, without clarifying they mean "won't change, until somebody decides that it will".  Similarly, Republicans shouldn't be advertising that there definitely will be more audits on the middle class; they should only point out that there could be.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #151 on: August 18, 2022, 10:56:55 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4547
  • Tommy Points: 459
Again, more reports that the idea that this will lead to more IRS audits for regular folks is not true:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

It’s fear mongering by Republicans

Where in the bill does it say that?  What promises being made are actually binding, now or in the future?

I think you are correct that it will be more internal policy decisions than the bill itself that will determine who gets audited. For now the rhetoric seems to be focused on higher earners but of course that doesn’t seem etched in stone.  I didn’t know before reading this article that about 50,000 of the ‘new’ IRS agents will replace existing agents that will be lost to attrition.  So talking about a net increase of about 25,000 as opposed to 87,000.

Yeah, I just want people to understand what these promises mean.  If Yellen or the Director of the IRS decides tomorrow that they want the IRS to increase audits on those making over $200,000 (instead of $400,000), that can and will happen.  If Yellen gets replaced, a new Treasury secretary could order audits be increased on all Americans, or could increase the non-mandatory audit limit to $1 million, or $50 million, or to 4x the Federal poverty limit, or to whatever number they want.

Democrats shouldn't say the percentage of those audited in the middle class won't change, without clarifying they mean "won't change, until somebody decides that it will".  Similarly, Republicans shouldn't be advertising that there definitely will be more audits on the middle class; they should only point out that there could be.

Putting aside whether there will actually be more audits, are more audits actually a bad thing? I think its pretty obvious that before this bill the IRS was underfunded and had been purposefully for about the last decade or so. Lets say audits on those making under 400,000 doubled, and helped the US government bring in the revenue it should, wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't get me wrong it may suck for those audited but if the IRS finds you're underpaying (maybe accidentally) then ultimately wasn't the audit a good thing (for society at large)?

I guess if you're a tax cheat I don't care if you make 75,000 or 75,000,000. If we as a society feel that people may be audited by accident, or that the tax code is needlessly confusing, or that those under 400,000 pay too much you'd think the answer would be pass laws that fix those issues, not hobble the IRS.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #152 on: August 18, 2022, 11:06:42 AM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1866
  • Tommy Points: 196
Again, more reports that the idea that this will lead to more IRS audits for regular folks is not true:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

It’s fear mongering by Republicans

Where in the bill does it say that?  What promises being made are actually binding, now or in the future?

I think you are correct that it will be more internal policy decisions than the bill itself that will determine who gets audited. For now the rhetoric seems to be focused on higher earners but of course that doesn’t seem etched in stone.  I didn’t know before reading this article that about 50,000 of the ‘new’ IRS agents will replace existing agents that will be lost to attrition.  So talking about a net increase of about 25,000 as opposed to 87,000.

Yeah, I just want people to understand what these promises mean.  If Yellen or the Director of the IRS decides tomorrow that they want the IRS to increase audits on those making over $200,000 (instead of $400,000), that can and will happen.  If Yellen gets replaced, a new Treasury secretary could order audits be increased on all Americans, or could increase the non-mandatory audit limit to $1 million, or $50 million, or to 4x the Federal poverty limit, or to whatever number they want.

Democrats shouldn't say the percentage of those audited in the middle class won't change, without clarifying they mean "won't change, until somebody decides that it will".  Similarly, Republicans shouldn't be advertising that there definitely will be more audits on the middle class; they should only point out that there could be.

Putting aside whether there will actually be more audits, are more audits actually a bad thing? I think its pretty obvious that before this bill the IRS was underfunded and had been purposefully for about the last decade or so. Lets say audits on those making under 400,000 doubled, and helped the US government bring in the revenue it should, wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't get me wrong it may suck for those audited but if the IRS finds you're underpaying (maybe accidentally) then ultimately wasn't the audit a good thing (for society at large)?

I guess if you're a tax cheat I don't care if you make 75,000 or 75,000,000. If we as a society feel that people may be audited by accident, or that the tax code is needlessly confusing, or that those under 400,000 pay too much you'd think the answer would be pass laws that fix those issues, not hobble the IRS.

I supposed the downside of that, especially for low-income families, are how much time and effort does it take for an individual to be audited? As in, if a person gets audited, do they have to take time off work to make sure things are in order or would they have to hire, or at least meet with an accountant during this period? I can see that being burdensome for an honest person filing their taxes but that is the only downside I see.
Baby Jesus!

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #153 on: August 18, 2022, 11:57:30 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52074
  • Tommy Points: -26007
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Again, more reports that the idea that this will lead to more IRS audits for regular folks is not true:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

It’s fear mongering by Republicans

Where in the bill does it say that?  What promises being made are actually binding, now or in the future?

I think you are correct that it will be more internal policy decisions than the bill itself that will determine who gets audited. For now the rhetoric seems to be focused on higher earners but of course that doesn’t seem etched in stone.  I didn’t know before reading this article that about 50,000 of the ‘new’ IRS agents will replace existing agents that will be lost to attrition.  So talking about a net increase of about 25,000 as opposed to 87,000.

Yeah, I just want people to understand what these promises mean.  If Yellen or the Director of the IRS decides tomorrow that they want the IRS to increase audits on those making over $200,000 (instead of $400,000), that can and will happen.  If Yellen gets replaced, a new Treasury secretary could order audits be increased on all Americans, or could increase the non-mandatory audit limit to $1 million, or $50 million, or to 4x the Federal poverty limit, or to whatever number they want.

Democrats shouldn't say the percentage of those audited in the middle class won't change, without clarifying they mean "won't change, until somebody decides that it will".  Similarly, Republicans shouldn't be advertising that there definitely will be more audits on the middle class; they should only point out that there could be.

Putting aside whether there will actually be more audits, are more audits actually a bad thing? I think its pretty obvious that before this bill the IRS was underfunded and had been purposefully for about the last decade or so. Lets say audits on those making under 400,000 doubled, and helped the US government bring in the revenue it should, wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't get me wrong it may suck for those audited but if the IRS finds you're underpaying (maybe accidentally) then ultimately wasn't the audit a good thing (for society at large)?

I guess if you're a tax cheat I don't care if you make 75,000 or 75,000,000. If we as a society feel that people may be audited by accident, or that the tax code is needlessly confusing, or that those under 400,000 pay too much you'd think the answer would be pass laws that fix those issues, not hobble the IRS.

I agree with you, and nickagneta, and probably several others who have weighed in:  just pay your taxes.

I've never been through an audit.  I hear they suck.  I'm not sure how much discretion auditors have, but I hope they're not nickle and diming people for small expenditures where somebody hasn't kept track of every single receipt from 5 years ago.  But ultimately, rules are rules.

That said, I do think that most resources should be focused on larger income earners, if only because the payoff is bigger.  If an auditor spends 40 hours conducting an audit that recovers $1000, that's less efficient than an audit that recovers $100,000.  Also, there's probably an equity argument, where tax filers who can't afford an accountant aren't getting all of the deductions that they're legally entitled to, as opposed to extremely rich people who are using top-tier accountants to push limits.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #154 on: August 18, 2022, 12:00:10 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7934
  • Tommy Points: 590
Some of the statements coming from the GOP are terribly misleading.  They claim that these new IRS agents are going to target the middle class even though the Treasury Dept and everyone else has said that the "cheats" they intend to target are the higher income individuals and businesses. 

In order to believe that this "target the middle class" conspiracy even has a chance of being true, you have to believe the premise that Democrats have this secret plan to target the middle class more broadly.  That liberals really hate the middle class and that even though statistically, they are far more likely to be paying their fair share of their taxes, that democrats are going to force the IRS to target them just because they hate the middle class.

Or you can believe that because a higher percentage of the high income crowd are not currently paying their fair share, that the extra agents and technology that will come from this funding will be used to target them, the ones not paying their fair share.

The problem is that when idiots like Sen. Rick Scott make these idiotic statements, there are people out there that believe them.  Or people start with the "you know it is possible", or I am just asking the question, how do you know the democrats aren't secretly targeting the middle class, after all, everyone on Fox News is saying that democrats hate the middle class.

Quote
Scott claimed the Biden administration will use the Democrats' newly enacted Inflation Reduction Act to create "an IRS super-police force" to "audit and investigate" ordinary Americans. "The IRS is making it very clear that you not only need to be ready to audit and investigate your fellow hardworking Americans, your neighbors and friends, you need to be ready and, to use the IRS’s words, willing, to kill them,"

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #155 on: August 18, 2022, 12:06:34 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 52074
  • Tommy Points: -26007
  • Once A CrotoNat, Always A CrotoNat
Rick Scott is certainly an idiot.  At one point, he just seemed like a strict conservative.  Now, he seems like a nutter.  I'm not sure if I've changed or he has.

What's he mean with the "ready and willing to kill them" statement?  Who is killing who?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #156 on: August 18, 2022, 12:21:20 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7934
  • Tommy Points: 590
Rick Scott is certainly an idiot.  At one point, he just seemed like a strict conservative.  Now, he seems like a nutter.  I'm not sure if I've changed or he has.

What's he mean with the "ready and willing to kill them" statement?  Who is killing who?

You got me on that one, I have no idea where he got that or how a US Senator would feel it is good politics to amplify such a premise.

I have heard other snippets of Republicans saying things like the IRS is going to target and kill the middle class with this new "army" of agents.  That was the only specific reference to an actual statement that I could find in the short amount of time I had to search.  Even the use of the term "army" is highly unnecessarily provocative language.  But hey, if it keeps the base riled up.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #157 on: August 18, 2022, 12:58:11 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20362
  • Tommy Points: 2175
Again, more reports that the idea that this will lead to more IRS audits for regular folks is not true:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/treasury-department-rejects-gop-claims-irs-agents/story?id=88495613

It’s fear mongering by Republicans

Where in the bill does it say that?  What promises being made are actually binding, now or in the future?

I think you are correct that it will be more internal policy decisions than the bill itself that will determine who gets audited. For now the rhetoric seems to be focused on higher earners but of course that doesn’t seem etched in stone.  I didn’t know before reading this article that about 50,000 of the ‘new’ IRS agents will replace existing agents that will be lost to attrition.  So talking about a net increase of about 25,000 as opposed to 87,000.

Yeah, I just want people to understand what these promises mean.  If Yellen or the Director of the IRS decides tomorrow that they want the IRS to increase audits on those making over $200,000 (instead of $400,000), that can and will happen.  If Yellen gets replaced, a new Treasury secretary could order audits be increased on all Americans, or could increase the non-mandatory audit limit to $1 million, or $50 million, or to 4x the Federal poverty limit, or to whatever number they want.

Democrats shouldn't say the percentage of those audited in the middle class won't change, without clarifying they mean "won't change, until somebody decides that it will".  Similarly, Republicans shouldn't be advertising that there definitely will be more audits on the middle class; they should only point out that there could be.

Putting aside whether there will actually be more audits, are more audits actually a bad thing? I think its pretty obvious that before this bill the IRS was underfunded and had been purposefully for about the last decade or so. Lets say audits on those making under 400,000 doubled, and helped the US government bring in the revenue it should, wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't get me wrong it may suck for those audited but if the IRS finds you're underpaying (maybe accidentally) then ultimately wasn't the audit a good thing (for society at large)?

I guess if you're a tax cheat I don't care if you make 75,000 or 75,000,000. If we as a society feel that people may be audited by accident, or that the tax code is needlessly confusing, or that those under 400,000 pay too much you'd think the answer would be pass laws that fix those issues, not hobble the IRS.

I agree with you, and nickagneta, and probably several others who have weighed in:  just pay your taxes.

I've never been through an audit.  I hear they suck.  I'm not sure how much discretion auditors have, but I hope they're not nickle and diming people for small expenditures where somebody hasn't kept track of every single receipt from 5 years ago.  But ultimately, rules are rules.

That said, I do think that most resources should be focused on larger income earners, if only because the payoff is bigger.  If an auditor spends 40 hours conducting an audit that recovers $1000, that's less efficient than an audit that recovers $100,000.  Also, there's probably an equity argument, where tax filers who can't afford an accountant aren't getting all of the deductions that they're legally entitled to, as opposed to extremely rich people who are using top-tier accountants to push limits.

More auditing does provide incentive to be honest and to have backup.  I’m glad that everything I do tax-wise runs through my tax preparer.  I believe he’ll be able to provide the lion’s share of what is needed if I’m audited.  Fortunately my finances aren’t complicated and  with the increased standard deduction the last couple of years I have very little to prove in terms of deductions.  It’ll be a pain but maybe not a huge deal.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #158 on: August 18, 2022, 03:17:15 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • Tommy Points: 460
IRS just a few years ago was busted for targeting political opposition.  Do t worry though, I'm sure this expansion ded reach won't be abused at all. The same.clown who are getting rich off of insider trading are passing laws enabling the IRS to go after you. Enjoy your servitude.

And remember, the gov is totally your friend(well as long as you are a member of the right party.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1560333252942073859?t=5mWOczLQ9UI-FAfUvHYrtQ&s=19

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #159 on: August 18, 2022, 03:18:45 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • Tommy Points: 460
How many here are for stop and frisk? If you're not breaking the law you should have no worries, right???

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #160 on: August 18, 2022, 03:37:11 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20362
  • Tommy Points: 2175
How many here are for stop and frisk? If you're not breaking the law you should have no worries, right???

I trust most police officers as I trust most FBI agents. I’m sure you feel the same.  That said, I think there is some  concern that profiling would occur with some law enforcement officers. So I’d say that if reasonable suspicion is based more on race/gender than on something else, then it’s a discriminatory policy.  Before declaring how I feel about it, I’d like to know what the data show in terms of this type of discrimination.  I have no doubt you agree with that.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #161 on: August 18, 2022, 03:42:05 PM »

Offline heyvik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1912
  • Tommy Points: 69
How many here are for stop and frisk? If you're not breaking the law you should have no worries, right???

so in other words you are saying that people should just comply, is that correct @Angryguy77?
If law enforcement have a reason to search you then one should just obey what law enforcement is requesting correct?

BTW - If you have time in the Donald Trump/White House Records discussion - @Kernewek asked about holding DJT accountable and you never answered.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #162 on: August 18, 2022, 03:48:16 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4547
  • Tommy Points: 459
IRS just a few years ago was busted for targeting political opposition.  Do t worry though, I'm sure this expansion ded reach won't be abused at all. The same.clown who are getting rich off of insider trading are passing laws enabling the IRS to go after you. Enjoy your servitude.

And remember, the gov is totally your friend(well as long as you are a member of the right party.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1560333252942073859?t=5mWOczLQ9UI-FAfUvHYrtQ&s=19

So the IRS targeted a specific group, the abuse was detected and stopped. Isn't that.... a good sign? It means if the IRS does decide to target middle class tax payers we can see it and stop it if necessary.


Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #163 on: August 18, 2022, 03:57:51 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7934
  • Tommy Points: 590
IRS just a few years ago was busted for targeting political opposition.  Do t worry though, I'm sure this expansion ded reach won't be abused at all. The same.clown who are getting rich off of insider trading are passing laws enabling the IRS to go after you. Enjoy your servitude.

And remember, the gov is totally your friend(well as long as you are a member of the right party.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1560333252942073859?t=5mWOczLQ9UI-FAfUvHYrtQ&s=19

Poor management and not partisan politics were found to be the reason.

I am not suggesting that the "government" does not go wrong sometime but I also do not believe the providing proper funding to the IRS so that they can do their job is part of a conspiracy to target the middle class.

Maybe if they had been better funded in the past, they could have done a better job of managing the scrutiny of these tax exempt political organizations.  Or is it better that any organization that claims to be tax exempt just be taken at their word?


Quote
Republicans claimed the targeting of conservative groups showed political bias in the IRS under former Democratic President Barack Obama. House Republican investigators found no connection to the Obama administration, according to a 2014 report.

Obama fired Miller after an internal 2013 IRS audit released found poor management - not partisan politics - led to an “inappropriate” focus on conservative groups.

No criminal charges were ever filed against IRS officials.

Re: Manchin - Schumer Inflation Reduction Act
« Reply #164 on: August 18, 2022, 04:28:45 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • Tommy Points: 460
How many here are for stop and frisk? If you're not breaking the law you should have no worries, right???

so in other words you are saying that people should just comply, is that correct @Angryguy77?
If law enforcement have a reason to search you then one should just obey what law enforcement is requesting correct?

BTW - If you have time in the Donald Trump/White House Records discussion - @Kernewek asked about holding DJT accountable and you never answered.

Until people can admit dems are getting away with crimes, I owe no answer.