• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Killing the IRS

I enjoy the privilege of being an American. If you don't like paying taxes, move to Greece.

Won't hear complaints about paying taxes from me either. What the tax revenue gets spent on however...
 
Won't hear complaints about paying taxes from me either. What the tax revenue gets spent on however...

Taxes are your entrance to the voting booth. How those taxes are spent depends on who you vote for. Who you vote for is irrelevant b/c they could care less about your life and will spend it in their best interest. Yes, I'm feeling a bit jaded today.
 
2&2 continues to confuse. 2&2 and jhmd would rather change the system so the IRS is more incentivized to chase people?

Which one is more of an example of government overreach?

A. IRS estimates taxes based on a broad calculation. Individual taxpayers can adjust that as they see fit throughout the year and file their taxes by April 15. The result of this set up is that for 80% of taxpayers, all the IRS does it cut a check.

B. IRS estimates taxes based on specific detailed information about each taxpayer. Individual taxpayers file their taxes by April 15. The result of this system is more accurate calculations meaning the IRS has to get more aggressive in making sure people pay their taxes.

I'm not sure why anybody skeptical of the IRS would prefer B. Stick with A. Do you own legwork and figure out how to adjust your withholding. If the IRS borrows a few thousand dollars for the year, consider that a reasonable compromise instead of having them poke through your life to get the rest of what you owe.

But I would have to notify the IRS if I get a promotion, have a kid, buy a house, get fired, etc. within what time frame?

Honest question.

No, not at all. I think you guys are confused, I'm not saying that the IRS gets any more information than it already has, it just applies its own information to the specific taxpayer. It is just one division quotient per taxpayer, using the most basic two numbers already on the taxpayer's return.

Here is a simplistic example of how it would work:
In 2013, Taxpayer makes $100,000 gross. When he does his taxes for 2013, after all deductions applicable to him, his total federal income tax bill is $18,500 (net of both withheld and additional payments/refunds). So then for 2014, he would have a federal income tax withholding rate of 18.5%. If his actual applicable rate for 2014 ends up being 17% for that year when he does his taxes, then his rate for 2015 adjusts to 17%.
It is the same system that is in place now, but instead of using the 18.5% and susbequent 17% applicable to this actual person, we use a flat rate that is applicable to a fictional average based on number of dependents, which is like 1/10th of the info relevant for someone's actual amount of tax owed. So my system uses decreases the variance, so people are paying what they more accurately owe.
 
that is clearer/makes more sense. I thought you describing a more complex table of theoretically more-accurate percentages.
 
that is clearer/makes more sense. I thought you describing a more complex table of theoretically more-accurate percentages.

Agree. I still think 2&2's idea is unnecessary and invites more IRS intrusion, but it makes more sense than what I thought he was saying.
 
that is clearer/makes more sense. I thought you describing a more complex table of theoretically more-accurate percentages.

Ok, I thought you were describing a system where people submitted something to the IRS every time they had (or expected to have) a taxable event resulting in an adjustment in their withholding rate almost immediately.
 

Who’s More Likely to Be Audited: A Person Making $20,000 — or $400,000?

Budget cuts have crippled the IRS over the past eight years. Enforcement staff has dropped by a third. But while the number of audits has fallen across the board, the impact has been different for the rich and poor. For wealthy taxpayers, the story has been rosy: Not only has the audit rate been cut in half, but audits now tend to be less thorough.

It’s a different story for people who receive the EITC: The audit rate has fallen less steeply and the experience of being audited has become more punishing. Because of a 2015 law, EITC recipients are now more likely to have their refund held, something that can be calamitous for someone living month-to-month.
 
This issue was raised on the income inequality thread but it’s a massive breach of taxpayer data and there are going to be internal and external investigations and I would anticipate massive fines and potential jail time. It was addressed in the Senate Finance committee testimony today by IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig.

There’s a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. These are taxpayers who rely on tax and other professional advisors to structure their transactions in a tax efficient manner within the bounds of the law. To change that requires a change in the tax code.

The IRS Commissioner estimates there is a $1 trillion gap between what is owed and what is reported, and the IRS doesn’t have the resources to effectively go after those dollars.

The IRS will lose 52,000 employees in the next 6 years that need to be replaced and the IRS barely has the resources to do that let alone expand enforcement.
 
We should change the tax code and give the IRS resources to go after tax avoidance.
 
Rettig made the point in his testimony that a company fighting a $5-10 Billion transfer pricing adjustment will spend $1 billion to save $4-9 billion and his entire budget is less than $12 billion.
 
We should change the tax code and give the IRS resources to go after tax avoidance.

I'm on board with assigning all of the folks under the "guaranteed federal employment" plan to the IRS as additional resources.

Make it happen, PhDeac
 
fuck, Richards' delivery of " but they do...and they're the ones writing it off." is brilliant. Seinfeld even breaks but they kept the take.
 
cav, genuinely interested: if you were tax czar, what changes are you implementing?
 
cav, genuinely interested: if you were tax czar, what changes are you implementing?

For the most part Biden's original plan nailed it. Eliminate step up in basis and tax the shit at death.
 
cav, genuinely interested: if you were tax czar, what changes are you implementing?

It’s really split into administrative priorities versus legislative priorities.

My first move would be to increase enforcement on non-filers and ensure everybody is at a minimum participating in the process. That should generate a significant amount of revenue.

I’d then identify the largest dollar issues and focus on those. How much money do we really want to spend auditing somebody’s Earned Income Tax Credit.

Legislatively, I think we need to look at preferred tax rates for investment income and phasing those out over a certain threshold.
 
Back
Top