• @cosmicrookie
    link
    226 months ago

    The average American feel as though they were going to be targeted by the IRS, rather than the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans

    This is the problem with American politics and American economics.

    The average America feels that they are, or belong to, the wealthiest 1%

    • @CharlesDarwin
      link
      English
      76 months ago

      The average America feels that they are, or belong to, the wealthiest 1%

      “John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

      I think one of the earliest moments in my political awakening was, while watching a TV debate between two local politicians, I remember remarking to my friend that the older guy seemed to be more reasoned, etc. (I was like 8 or 9). The head of the household overheard this, and - this was in a trailer in a very depressed area of the country, mind you - all of us were quite poor - turned beet red, and shouted, HE WANTS TO RAISE MY TAXES!!!

      That is the source of so many problems in this country. These people really do think they are going to be living like kings and queens if it wasn’t for “taxes”.

      • @cosmicrookie
        link
        56 months ago

        The funny thing is, that they could be living like kings and queens if everybody did pay their taxes

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          Maybe not like kings and queens, but it would certainly help create equality. Having lived in several European countries for many years, it’s quite unreal to see the enormous inequality in the US being mostly defended by the people who would benefit the most from its dismantling.

    • @danc4498
      link
      English
      36 months ago

      This is the problem with parties that only win by fear mongering. Their dishonesty results in our progress being held back.

  • @CharlesDarwin
    link
    English
    166 months ago

    Defunding the IRS will become even higher priority item for the cons.

  • @Coach
    link
    English
    -936 months ago

    …and it only cost $80B to do it. 🙄

    • ignirtoq
      link
      fedilink
      816 months ago

      The $80 billion is spread over 10 years, and Republicans have already reduced that by $20 billion. Also, that’s the total increase in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, whereas this $1 billion recovered is only one success story of many. Please don’t make such misleading statements.

      • @Coach
        link
        English
        -61
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022 without any Republican votes, approved about $80 billion for the IRS over a 10-year period.

        Democrats say the money is meant to help the IRS ramp up its enforcement efforts on high-income taxpayers as well as improve its archaic taxpayer services system.

        From a linked article. I’m not sure how much the “archaic taxpayer services system” costs, but my comment is accurate.

        • ignirtoq
          link
          fedilink
          646 months ago

          Your comment is technically accurate, but leaves out context and relevant information, which makes it misleading. My comment is accurate as well.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          446 months ago

          Your comment would be accurate if it cost them $80B to recover $1B.

          Your own quote points out:

          $80 billion for the IRS over a 10-year period.

          Which makes your comments misleading, not accurate.

          • @anticolonialist
            link
            English
            -346 months ago

            So in other words it cost $8b to recover $1b? And this is seen as a good thing?!?! That make as much sense as toilet paper math

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                176 months ago

                Obviously the minute $80b was allocated, the IRS should have immediately brought in $340b, that’s how math works, right?? /s

                Seriously though, outside of the direct revenue claimed by this, having a well funded IRS sets a precedent to be honest on taxes. If people know the IRS is understaffed, and hear about billionaires (and former presidents) paying nothing in taxes, why should the average American feel they should be honest and pay their fair share? Only time will tell, but we can look back and see if reported tax payments increased significantly because of IRS funding, outside of money brought in from audits.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              14
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              You are deliberately oversimplifying this to make a conservative talking point. Stop it. We all know what you’re doing. Take this crap back to /r/conservative. They thrive on overly reduced, flippant one liners that validate their worldview.

          • @Coach
            link
            English
            -666 months ago

            If the program costs $80B, then it costs $80B. And it’s taken in…well, lemme check my records…$1B.

            Sorry if my brain can’t do the mental hula hoops it takes to calculate that any other way.

            • NaibofTabr
              link
              fedilink
              English
              416 months ago

              The IRS cost $16B total to operate in 2023. Federal tax revenue in 2023 was $4.44T.

              This idea that you’re trying to project, that funding the IRS is somehow not worth the cost, is absolutely bonkers.

              • @Coach
                link
                English
                -436 months ago

                That’s not what the article says. I’m just reading and quoting.

                • @pikmeir
                  link
                  26
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Yes. But as soon as you realize you’ve left out important information or someone else adds important information, it’s important to accept that into your reasoning. It seemed like you were fighting back at them in your replies, and doubling down on your initial claims which you now know weren’t complete. You weren’t wrong with the information you had at the time when you commented, but it made you look stubborn by not being willing to accept new information or learn. Just my two cents as an outsider.

            • @Nerdrage717
              link
              26 months ago

              To be fair, if it costs 80b in 10 years and has only been implemented for 2 years, then it only cost 16b to recover 1b.

              • @Coach
                link
                English
                -366 months ago

                Listen, I’m just reading and quoting. Take it up with the writer.

                • @breakingcups
                  link
                  166 months ago

                  No you’re not, you’re quoting in a misleading way, you are drawing your own (incorrect) conclusion that recovering 1b cost 80b which is patently incorrect even in the bit of the article you quoted and you refuse to engage anyone who is poining out that you’re wrong using good faith arguments, instead saying you’re “just reading and quoting” which is the equivalent of covering your ears and going “LALALA”.

              • @Coach
                link
                English
                -86 months ago

                grk fakmo

                Say whaaaa??

                • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
                  link
                  16 months ago

                  you may be an idiot, but that guy is having a stroke. In his heart or penis, I’m not sure which.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      146 months ago

      Agreed! It’d be MUCH BETTER if we used that 80B to PAY for those Millionaire’s and Billionaire’s Yachts INSTEAD of collecting over a BILLION in less then a Year!