The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes
http://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-people-are-getting-away-not-paying-their-taxes/577798/
188 comments
Definitely not great behavior. The idea this was purely an anti-conservative thing when OSS advocacy is on this list is where my eyes glaze over though. Just on its face there is a lot of evidence in the other direction
>Ryun has stated he believes that Greenhouse Solutions benefited from its name (although the quick approval might also be due to the fact that Greenhouse Solutions was already operating as a nonprofit and was already on-file with the IRS.)
Like “conservative claims bias (but here is the real explanation).” Might as well place “claims to be innocent “ in the profile of every person in Shawshank
The insistence of people bringing up this thing as a conservative thing only when there were liberal groups also being targeted (There could have been a proper bipartisan effort against this!) is mind-boggling.
>Ryun has stated he believes that Greenhouse Solutions benefited from its name (although the quick approval might also be due to the fact that Greenhouse Solutions was already operating as a nonprofit and was already on-file with the IRS.)
Like “conservative claims bias (but here is the real explanation).” Might as well place “claims to be innocent “ in the profile of every person in Shawshank
The insistence of people bringing up this thing as a conservative thing only when there were liberal groups also being targeted (There could have been a proper bipartisan effort against this!) is mind-boggling.
I don't care to rehash the argument, but targeting nonprofits based on their names is at best arbitrary and uneven. Maybe it was accidental that conservative groups felt targeted. But given that non-profits aren't in the business of lawsuits, it's a due process concern when the IRS is arbitrary.
Some sort of heuristic based on random sampling or less political profiling (location, governing structure, association with known tax evaders) makes more sense.
Some sort of heuristic based on random sampling or less political profiling (location, governing structure, association with known tax evaders) makes more sense.
Yep, I had never really dug too much into this (partly because I would hear about it from people I know to act in bad faith), but I agree on the arbitrariness being a due process concern.
I do feel like "random sampling" would make a lot more sense here. Other profiling feels like it might end up in the same spot though. Really the ideal thing is to improve the processes/rules and give enough resources to where they don't feel the need to have to pull fringe-political-shaped needles out of haystacks in the hopes that those needles happen to also be non-compliant shaped.
Incentives are all weird here, and we end up in these messes. And some people take advantage of that to create a narrative that makes it _even harder_ to solve the real problem (imagine asking for more resources for compliance after this "IRS is being used for politics" stuff)
I do feel like "random sampling" would make a lot more sense here. Other profiling feels like it might end up in the same spot though. Really the ideal thing is to improve the processes/rules and give enough resources to where they don't feel the need to have to pull fringe-political-shaped needles out of haystacks in the hopes that those needles happen to also be non-compliant shaped.
Incentives are all weird here, and we end up in these messes. And some people take advantage of that to create a narrative that makes it _even harder_ to solve the real problem (imagine asking for more resources for compliance after this "IRS is being used for politics" stuff)
In the TIGTA report from 2017, the Senate Finance Committee (and the IRS itself) found that most, but not all, of the potentially political applications set aside for scrutiny by the IRS were Tea Party and conservative groups. The committee also found that the IRS used names and policy positions in order to identify groups for scrutiny. I think there is evidence to say there was an anti-conservative bias.
see TIGTA report: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/2017...
see TIGTA report: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/2017...
The reality is that 100% of the groups "targeted" by the IRS, mostly Republican and a few Democratic, were and are obviously, blatantly violating tax law in order to launder political activity through a fake tax-free group, to dodge taxes and hinder accountability. Every one of them was and is guilty. For every election cycle nowadays, thousands of these paper front groups are created for laundering political funds, and most of them are discarded at the end of the cycle. It's the most blatant tax fraud imaginable.
Every US government agency charged with looking into this said as much - no political bias, IRS completely right to do what it did, which is "enforce tax law".
However, political pressure from Republicans and a few Democrats convinced the IRS to back down, which was a sad outcome for people who dislike corruption in their government.
And recently, the Trump government used a lawsuit settlement to funnel a great deal of taxpayer cash to Republican operatives based on a very flimsy claim. That's an excellent method of backdoor embezzlement itself - just have Republican groups sue the government for anything and have the executive branch "settle" their claims for infinite dollars.
Every US government agency charged with looking into this said as much - no political bias, IRS completely right to do what it did, which is "enforce tax law".
However, political pressure from Republicans and a few Democrats convinced the IRS to back down, which was a sad outcome for people who dislike corruption in their government.
And recently, the Trump government used a lawsuit settlement to funnel a great deal of taxpayer cash to Republican operatives based on a very flimsy claim. That's an excellent method of backdoor embezzlement itself - just have Republican groups sue the government for anything and have the executive branch "settle" their claims for infinite dollars.
More like “Democratic”. She played the “see, I can be a Conservative too!” game to try to get the “small government” voters, and it didn’t even work anyway. Might as well quote Rand Paul because the whole “IRS is mean to Republicans” was definitely not a bipartisan belief except for red state Democrats.
I don't really understand your point.
Should audit selection be completly random? If your goal is to catch fraud, isn't it good to try and prioritize audits based on probability of fraud hapenning?
I'm also not sure what is discriminatory. Is being audited costly to the organisation? Otherwise, it shouldn't really be a big deal to be audited no? Unless you're actually committing fraud. Or to I misunderstand the scandal, and they claim that people were fined even though they didn't commit tax fraud?
Should audit selection be completly random? If your goal is to catch fraud, isn't it good to try and prioritize audits based on probability of fraud hapenning?
I'm also not sure what is discriminatory. Is being audited costly to the organisation? Otherwise, it shouldn't really be a big deal to be audited no? Unless you're actually committing fraud. Or to I misunderstand the scandal, and they claim that people were fined even though they didn't commit tax fraud?
I take pride in paying my taxes. It reminds me that our society has a cost, and we all contribute towards it.
I’d be interested to know how others feel. And how we could inspire more people to feel pride in contributing rather than make such efforts to avoid contributing.
I’d be interested to know how others feel. And how we could inspire more people to feel pride in contributing rather than make such efforts to avoid contributing.
I don't take pride at all. It is burdensome, worrying, and hostile for the following reasons.
1) My taxes are overly complicated. I have to hire lawyers and accountants to help. They have made mistakes but I am still liable.
2) My tax bracket pays a very high rate. With state taxes included I am near 50% on income. I don't think that's reasonable and the justification, in my opinion, is more based on a suspicion or dislike of people in my bracket than because I can afford to pay. The government spends far more than it's revenue anyways. If my bracket were moved to 100%, there would still be revenue deficits.
3) The IRS treats me as if I am hiding money. The higher your bracket it seems the more likely you are to be audited. My father has been audited multiple times. I have been audited once. It is not a pleasant experience and every letter the IRS sends causes more anxiety. Honest or trivial mistakes are treated as if done with criminal intent.
4) Nearly half the population does not pay taxes but can elect people who can choose what my rates are. I will never have a majority representation or much power to lower them. This doesn't seem fair to me.
5) The IRS can very well be incompetent or corrupt in the sense of being political but no one will admit that. The assumption is generally that tax cheats are a problem but not a biased IRS.
For me to be proud, I think lowering my rate, simplifying taxes, requiring more Americans to pay, even if it is just a few dollars, and putting something in place to report overzealous IRS agents or corruption there would go a long way.
1) My taxes are overly complicated. I have to hire lawyers and accountants to help. They have made mistakes but I am still liable.
2) My tax bracket pays a very high rate. With state taxes included I am near 50% on income. I don't think that's reasonable and the justification, in my opinion, is more based on a suspicion or dislike of people in my bracket than because I can afford to pay. The government spends far more than it's revenue anyways. If my bracket were moved to 100%, there would still be revenue deficits.
3) The IRS treats me as if I am hiding money. The higher your bracket it seems the more likely you are to be audited. My father has been audited multiple times. I have been audited once. It is not a pleasant experience and every letter the IRS sends causes more anxiety. Honest or trivial mistakes are treated as if done with criminal intent.
4) Nearly half the population does not pay taxes but can elect people who can choose what my rates are. I will never have a majority representation or much power to lower them. This doesn't seem fair to me.
5) The IRS can very well be incompetent or corrupt in the sense of being political but no one will admit that. The assumption is generally that tax cheats are a problem but not a biased IRS.
For me to be proud, I think lowering my rate, simplifying taxes, requiring more Americans to pay, even if it is just a few dollars, and putting something in place to report overzealous IRS agents or corruption there would go a long way.
I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits.
The more important thing IMO is that the government is not careful with the money we give it, and it supports causes the majority disagree with (e.g. upholding the federal marijuana ban). When you couple runaway spending with a feeling of lack of representation, paying taxes feels more like extortion than "paying your share".
If having everyone pay a little in taxes means they're more likely to vote for responsible spending, I'm all for it. But the tax system is so convoluted that many people think they're making money with their refund. Maybe having few people get a refund would be better, IDK. But the current system makes people apathetic toward federal spending.
The more important thing IMO is that the government is not careful with the money we give it, and it supports causes the majority disagree with (e.g. upholding the federal marijuana ban). When you couple runaway spending with a feeling of lack of representation, paying taxes feels more like extortion than "paying your share".
If having everyone pay a little in taxes means they're more likely to vote for responsible spending, I'm all for it. But the tax system is so convoluted that many people think they're making money with their refund. Maybe having few people get a refund would be better, IDK. But the current system makes people apathetic toward federal spending.
> I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits.
What's silly is letting people who are net tax-receivers have any say in how much other people pay in taxes. No representation without net taxation!
Caveat: It's difficult to measure, but the cost of regulation (which does not include merely respecting others' natural rights) should really be counted as a form of tax. One idea would be to actually pay people to follow the regulations, as an equitable trade and not a benefit. The net tax-payers in charge would then be responsible for contributing the resources needed to make it worthwhile for the rest to comply with the regulations they propose. Anyone who doesn't comply simply doesn't get paid.
What's silly is letting people who are net tax-receivers have any say in how much other people pay in taxes. No representation without net taxation!
Caveat: It's difficult to measure, but the cost of regulation (which does not include merely respecting others' natural rights) should really be counted as a form of tax. One idea would be to actually pay people to follow the regulations, as an equitable trade and not a benefit. The net tax-payers in charge would then be responsible for contributing the resources needed to make it worthwhile for the rest to comply with the regulations they propose. Anyone who doesn't comply simply doesn't get paid.
I'm with you. But many people do not agree with us, and the last I heard, the ROI on each dollar spent at the IRS is higher than almost anywhere else in government. Hollowing out the IRS, and by extension the federal budget, has been a goal of one of our political parties for a very long time. It's sad to see them succeeding in a way that will cost our country dearly in the long term.
> the ROI on each dollar spent at the IRS is higher than almost anywhere else in government
It only looks that way because you're comparing the revenues and expenses of a profit center. This is like measuring the "ROI" of a company's invoicing department, while disregarding the fact that without the cost centers actually producing goods and services for sale there would be nothing to invoice.
Properly measuring the worth of the department requires looking at the whole system, not just the IRS—and in this case, that includes both the public and private sectors. After all, the government supposedly exists to serve the public, and not for its own benefit. From that point of view, the IRS isn't producing much of anything; it's just moving money from one area of the economy to another. Any argument that this activity results in a positive ROI hinges on whether the areas they're moving money to are more beneficial than the areas they're taking money from. (Many would disagree.)
It only looks that way because you're comparing the revenues and expenses of a profit center. This is like measuring the "ROI" of a company's invoicing department, while disregarding the fact that without the cost centers actually producing goods and services for sale there would be nothing to invoice.
Properly measuring the worth of the department requires looking at the whole system, not just the IRS—and in this case, that includes both the public and private sectors. After all, the government supposedly exists to serve the public, and not for its own benefit. From that point of view, the IRS isn't producing much of anything; it's just moving money from one area of the economy to another. Any argument that this activity results in a positive ROI hinges on whether the areas they're moving money to are more beneficial than the areas they're taking money from. (Many would disagree.)
It's almost as if the person running that party has spent his entire adult life trying to find ways to defraud the IRS (and otherwise minimize his tax burden).
I pay my taxes because I'd be in jail if I didn't. So much of what I pay goes to killing people all over the world, spreading the US hegemony, and jailing people for victimless "crimes" which I personally consider to be non-issues, that I'm disgusted each year when I tabulate my taxes.
So, you feel pride, I feel disgust. Society does have a cost, but building shared infrastructure and whatnot doesn't have to be funded via just one mechanism, one which can do whatever it feels like all over the world.
So, you feel pride, I feel disgust. Society does have a cost, but building shared infrastructure and whatnot doesn't have to be funded via just one mechanism, one which can do whatever it feels like all over the world.
Which government would you rather give your tax money to?
Don't use the excuse that your government couldn't do better just because others are worse. That ends up being the race to the bottom that we're currently witnessing.
I didn't mean to justify the status quo, merely to point out the difficulties. We should absolutely work to improve things. But we shouldn't do so blindly.
All the things I think are worth taxing for constantly seem to be underfunded. We seem to have plenty of money for the things I think are wrong.
If you're the government, you can always spend the money on stuff you want but your constituents don't want, and then tell them you have to raise taxes to pay for the things they want.
If you're the government, you can always spend the money on stuff you want but your constituents don't want, and then tell them you have to raise taxes to pay for the things they want.
I'm a foreigner in the US and am thankful for the public infrastructure (even the old ones) and more than happy to pay taxes. I find a lot of Americans complain about taxes (even those who are on welfare, forgetting that taxes paid by others is what helping them in the first place). I went to my local library to become a member. The old lady there asked me if I live in the area and launched a lecture (even after I showed address proof) about how she is paying her taxes and she wants to make sure her "tax dollars" are used only by those in the area etc. The whole thing was bizarre.
What is interesting is that taxes in US are actually lower than many European countries. Sure, the federal gov isn't the most efficient one, but hating taxes THIS much just feels weird and wrong to me. Without taxes, civilization as we know will collapse
What is interesting is that taxes in US are actually lower than many European countries. Sure, the federal gov isn't the most efficient one, but hating taxes THIS much just feels weird and wrong to me. Without taxes, civilization as we know will collapse
I take no pride in it.
I had terrible experiences with the public school system growing up, and I doubt it's been fixed since then. I do not trust the government to do the right thing as a result. The government is yet another organization made up of people (or really, smaller organizations made up of people) who aren't necessarily doing their job correctly (or incorrectly, to be fair).
Also, our "society" and the government are not the same thing. Paying taxes to the government is not the same thing as paying your dues to society. As an example, if I have to pick between which person "contributes" to "society" more, a person who pays $0 in taxes because they work but earn very little versus a person who pays $0 in taxes because all their income is made illegally through theft, I can easily point to the former as being a better contributor to society. Similarly, one could make a case against the contributions of someone who pays a lot in taxes because they own a business that harms the environment or has other negative externalities. The point is that taxes are a rather poor measure of contribution to society. It's simply a reward of resources to government which, at least in the US, transforms those resources into a lot of shit including death in other countries.
I will admit that I think this is all necessary in order for the whole system to work, but I'm not going to pretend that the government is good or even, simply, not as bad as corporations. The attitude that taxes are something to be prideful about just seems like cheerleading. Not making a personal dig at you, that's just how I feel about the attitude.
And personally, I'll probably never feel prideful in contributing to taxes. Or maybe when I start receiving social security in several decades. Basically, it would take a lot to convince me that my previous most significant experience with the government (through my education) is unimportant and these other reasons (A, B, C, etc.) over here -- that I've had no personal experience with -- show that government is actually really very good and I should be proud to pay taxes.
I had terrible experiences with the public school system growing up, and I doubt it's been fixed since then. I do not trust the government to do the right thing as a result. The government is yet another organization made up of people (or really, smaller organizations made up of people) who aren't necessarily doing their job correctly (or incorrectly, to be fair).
Also, our "society" and the government are not the same thing. Paying taxes to the government is not the same thing as paying your dues to society. As an example, if I have to pick between which person "contributes" to "society" more, a person who pays $0 in taxes because they work but earn very little versus a person who pays $0 in taxes because all their income is made illegally through theft, I can easily point to the former as being a better contributor to society. Similarly, one could make a case against the contributions of someone who pays a lot in taxes because they own a business that harms the environment or has other negative externalities. The point is that taxes are a rather poor measure of contribution to society. It's simply a reward of resources to government which, at least in the US, transforms those resources into a lot of shit including death in other countries.
I will admit that I think this is all necessary in order for the whole system to work, but I'm not going to pretend that the government is good or even, simply, not as bad as corporations. The attitude that taxes are something to be prideful about just seems like cheerleading. Not making a personal dig at you, that's just how I feel about the attitude.
And personally, I'll probably never feel prideful in contributing to taxes. Or maybe when I start receiving social security in several decades. Basically, it would take a lot to convince me that my previous most significant experience with the government (through my education) is unimportant and these other reasons (A, B, C, etc.) over here -- that I've had no personal experience with -- show that government is actually really very good and I should be proud to pay taxes.
> Similarly, one could make a case against the contributions of someone who pays a lot in taxes because they own a business that harms the environment or has other negative externalities.
I think there's a strong case to be made that one of the most fundamental justifications for taxes is to cover the cost of negative externalities.
I think there's a strong case to be made that one of the most fundamental justifications for taxes is to cover the cost of negative externalities.
I fail to find any pride in being forced to pay the price I have no influence over for goods I have no say in either production or distribution. Yes, I know that that's what I signed for when moving into the US to live as a non-citizen alien (not that becoming a citizen would change anything - voting in California, esp. SV part, is next to useless, the outcomes are predetermined anyway), and it's probably a better deal than most of other countries would offer me (that's why I took it), but it doesn't make me bubbling with joy.
I recognize that there's probably no realistic way to avoid it, but as it is for a person having to take drugs due to chronic illness, recognizing the necessity of having to do something does not mean being happy or proud about it. It's just a part of harsh reality. Especially if you take interest in particular details of how the massive trillion-size budgets are spent and how much money is wasted or stolen (illegally or legally) from it. No, platitudes of "society has a cost" do not do much for me. Food has a cost too, but if I'm offered a McDonald's sandwich for $100, I may pay for it and eat it, if all other food around is worse and more expensive, but I won't be proud or happy about it. And would take any legal effort available to me to keep my money out of the taxman's reach. When I feel the need to contribute to some cause, I just open my favorite charities list (unfortunately, much longer than my budget - after taxes - affords me to support adequately) and donate there.
I recognize that there's probably no realistic way to avoid it, but as it is for a person having to take drugs due to chronic illness, recognizing the necessity of having to do something does not mean being happy or proud about it. It's just a part of harsh reality. Especially if you take interest in particular details of how the massive trillion-size budgets are spent and how much money is wasted or stolen (illegally or legally) from it. No, platitudes of "society has a cost" do not do much for me. Food has a cost too, but if I'm offered a McDonald's sandwich for $100, I may pay for it and eat it, if all other food around is worse and more expensive, but I won't be proud or happy about it. And would take any legal effort available to me to keep my money out of the taxman's reach. When I feel the need to contribute to some cause, I just open my favorite charities list (unfortunately, much longer than my budget - after taxes - affords me to support adequately) and donate there.
Good for you. I definitely support and encourage you and I will get the benefit too. That being said, will I happily pay my tax? Haha no. I would not hesitate to cheat if the risk is very low.
The people that direct how taxes are spent have campaigned for a century to make people feel good about paying them.
The truth is revealed when someone refuses to pay, and suddently the prideful contributions become mandatory commandments, under threats of confiscation and ultimately restriction of freedom.
The truth is revealed when someone refuses to pay, and suddently the prideful contributions become mandatory commandments, under threats of confiscation and ultimately restriction of freedom.
I was raised a Catholic and, while not everything stuck with me, "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" did. The work that taxes do, at least in WA, make it a fair bargain too (where in South Africa it was daylight robbery).
I don't terribly mind paying taxes. But I figure following the model of capitalism, it's meant for everyone to act in their own interest & look for the lowest tax bill, and that's how you arrive at what your fair share of taxes are. For example, finding all the deductions you are legally entitled to, or choosing to buy an electric car because it reduces your tax bill. That's all behavior we want.
So I guess you could say I'm happy to pay my fair share- but not more.
Now, structuring everything such that a particular taxpayer's lowest tax bill is actually "fair", is not easy, especially with lobbyists in the equation.
So I guess you could say I'm happy to pay my fair share- but not more.
Now, structuring everything such that a particular taxpayer's lowest tax bill is actually "fair", is not easy, especially with lobbyists in the equation.
I have strongly mixed feelings, especially with 60% of federal taxes going to military spending.
National parks are good though.
National parks are good though.
According to this if the federal budget is 4.4 trillion and military budget is 886 billion then that would equate to 20%.
Not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it isn't 60%.
Not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it isn't 60%.
people are conflating the total budget with the discretionary budget.
can you cite a source for 60% of federal taxes going to military spending?
~54% according to the breakdown on wiki[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_bud...
As noted above and below, this is not full budget. Please ignore this comment.
The first link on google:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
claims 54% on "military" and additional 6% on "veteran's affair"
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
claims 54% on "military" and additional 6% on "veteran's affair"
yeah that is out of the discretionary budget, which is roughly a fourth of the total budget. the government also spends more money than it collects in taxes, so the 60% figure doesn't have much to do with what fraction of your tax dollars actually get spent on the military.
That's not accounting for payroll taxes like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- right?
Because those, combined with debt service, make up a HUGE portion of the federal budget.
Because those, combined with debt service, make up a HUGE portion of the federal budget.
It's not 60% of federal taxes: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
It's 60% of discretionary spending or around 18% of all federal spending. The biggest programs are entitlements: social security and medicare.
It's 60% of discretionary spending or around 18% of all federal spending. The biggest programs are entitlements: social security and medicare.
Oopsie!
You are right and I am wrong. :o(
You are right and I am wrong. :o(
How much should go to military spending?
Much less? If you're asking the internet for raw numbers on budget allocation it's a bit of a silly question to throw out.
I don't, myself, object purely to the proportion... but more to the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets and being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more.
I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up.
So, I'll state clearly and without _any trace of sarcasm_ military spending should be 75rad% of our budget, which is a reduction of 4rad%.
Also the 60% number in the grand parent is... I have no idea where that's from, in 2012 DoD spending was ~15% of the budget and it has always, within recent history, been below the amount allocated for social security.
I don't, myself, object purely to the proportion... but more to the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets and being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more.
I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up.
So, I'll state clearly and without _any trace of sarcasm_ military spending should be 75rad% of our budget, which is a reduction of 4rad%.
Also the 60% number in the grand parent is... I have no idea where that's from, in 2012 DoD spending was ~15% of the budget and it has always, within recent history, been below the amount allocated for social security.
The money connection to lobbying is really really indirect.
The government pays the company. The company pays the employees. The employees donate to a PAC. (for every big defense contractor there exists a friendly PAC) The PAC does lobbying.
Employees aren't required to participate. There is no punishment for an employee who instead donates to an opposing PAC or just spends their extra money on trips to baseball games.
It's not half as bad as a public sector union doing lobbying with involuntary dues.
If a defense contractor employee can't donate to that PAC, what about every other PAC? It is political expression. Would you ban political expression for all people who in some indirect way get paid by the government?
The government pays the company. The company pays the employees. The employees donate to a PAC. (for every big defense contractor there exists a friendly PAC) The PAC does lobbying.
Employees aren't required to participate. There is no punishment for an employee who instead donates to an opposing PAC or just spends their extra money on trips to baseball games.
It's not half as bad as a public sector union doing lobbying with involuntary dues.
If a defense contractor employee can't donate to that PAC, what about every other PAC? It is political expression. Would you ban political expression for all people who in some indirect way get paid by the government?
> the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets
I'd like to know where you think it goes after that, because after 14 years in the industry I saw very little of it.
> being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more
The amount spent on lobbying is pretty small, relatively speaking. It also needs to come out of the company's profits, which aren't all that high since they are generally capped by contracts.
I'd like to know where you think it goes after that, because after 14 years in the industry I saw very little of it.
> being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more
The amount spent on lobbying is pretty small, relatively speaking. It also needs to come out of the company's profits, which aren't all that high since they are generally capped by contracts.
> I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up.
A lot of the military spending goes toward defense on the behalf of Japan and Europe. Those regions haven't devolved into their usual historic conflicts under this arrangement, and there are enormous peace dividends that we reap from that.
A lot of the military spending goes toward defense on the behalf of Japan and Europe. Those regions haven't devolved into their usual historic conflicts under this arrangement, and there are enormous peace dividends that we reap from that.
And this spending, in particular the state department spending, is money quite well spent.
I think overseas investment for peace and prosperity is a worthy goal, this can include subsidizing foreign militaries, investing in foreign infrastructure, or even just being diplomatic and not starting fights.
I also didn't mention this before but I have no objections to the US paying rather insane amounts of money to support wages for military personnel (and I don't object to O5+ pay levels either) but I do object to the US government's mercenary employment. I think our economy is nearing a post-scarcity state and government, especially military, employment is a way to delay the bad effects this can have on our economy.
Private military services and DoD equipment acquisition tends to be where most of the US spending ends up going into dark holes for no real reason. I'd love to see this reformed.
I think overseas investment for peace and prosperity is a worthy goal, this can include subsidizing foreign militaries, investing in foreign infrastructure, or even just being diplomatic and not starting fights.
I also didn't mention this before but I have no objections to the US paying rather insane amounts of money to support wages for military personnel (and I don't object to O5+ pay levels either) but I do object to the US government's mercenary employment. I think our economy is nearing a post-scarcity state and government, especially military, employment is a way to delay the bad effects this can have on our economy.
Private military services and DoD equipment acquisition tends to be where most of the US spending ends up going into dark holes for no real reason. I'd love to see this reformed.
Of course I don't expect a raw number, it was a rhetorical question. I half expected the reply to be zero...
I don't know. Seriously.
Would be happy to hear any thoughts.
It just seems to me that spending more than half of the budget on military is somewhat wrong.
It just seems to me that spending more than half of the budget on military is somewhat wrong.
Really? Given that the United States form a federal republic, and that under their Constitution most authority is retained by the states, and that the military is one of the few things not relegated to the states, it would make sense for the military to be the major federal expenditure.
"Double of what the second country spends" should be enough.
No more than 3% of GDP, and no more than 15% of all government spending.
Also, no less than 1% of GDP. 2% of GDP is a fine target.
Also, no less than 1% of GDP. 2% of GDP is a fine target.
I will never feel good (let alone pride) paying taxes until:
* I don't pay an exorbitant amount of my monthly income to health insurance, mostly due to government meddling in that industry.
* Billions of dollars of weapons aren't deployed in theaters I don't want to fund wars in.
* I see some sort of efficiency or really, non-corruption at the local and state level with the money I'm paying.
Until then, I will continue to feel exploited and that my money would be of better use in the private sector.
* I don't pay an exorbitant amount of my monthly income to health insurance, mostly due to government meddling in that industry.
* Billions of dollars of weapons aren't deployed in theaters I don't want to fund wars in.
* I see some sort of efficiency or really, non-corruption at the local and state level with the money I'm paying.
Until then, I will continue to feel exploited and that my money would be of better use in the private sector.
Don't forget the outright citizen-hostile domestic programs - NSA, DEA, CIA, DHS, TSA, etc.
They're not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but taxes are the source of energy that they live on. Very few would directly pay to be surveilled and terrorized, but through the magic of the principle-agent problem the parasites persist.
(Having said that, I doubt the motives of large scale tax avoiders are so noble - in fact I would guess that they'd be more likely to support said programs)
They're not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but taxes are the source of energy that they live on. Very few would directly pay to be surveilled and terrorized, but through the magic of the principle-agent problem the parasites persist.
(Having said that, I doubt the motives of large scale tax avoiders are so noble - in fact I would guess that they'd be more likely to support said programs)
With the ways the government (local->state->federal) spend money and manage budgets funding them (thru debt+taxes) at the absolute minimum is the only moral option.
Rationale being:
* Military industrial complex and associated adventurism
* Broken criminal Justice system, prison industrial complex and civil asset forfeitures.
* Drug war
* Chronic pension mismanagement in nearly all states and localities.
Could go on and on ...
Rationale being:
* Military industrial complex and associated adventurism
* Broken criminal Justice system, prison industrial complex and civil asset forfeitures.
* Drug war
* Chronic pension mismanagement in nearly all states and localities.
Could go on and on ...
I'm against taxes for the simple fact they're non-voluntary. I don't think there's anything wrong with people that that are willing to pay them, but I don't think forcefully [meaning, eventually you will be arrested by someone with a gun] taking another person's money is justifiable by any society.
Would love to know how you think emergency response or national defense would work in a taxes-are-voluntary scenario.
I would like to agree with you, except that if I were completely honest I would sometimes lump it with things that I should pay for like NPR and Wikipedia, and which I normally do, but some years I skip out on to spend on other niceties. Keeping government running and infrastructure maintained is much more important and should not be voluntarily withheld.
It would seem then that anybody who fails to pay their end of a transaction would get off scot-free? Because they only way you can maintain the usefulness of money is if you enforce payment where it is due.
In the USA one won't be arrested nor go to jail for simply not paying taxes as it is merely a civil offense, not a criminal one.
https://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/can-you-go-to-ja...
https://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/can-you-go-to-ja...
I think you need to read that linked article a bit more closely.
"You can go to jail for not filing your taxes. You can go to jail for lying on your return. But you can’t go to jail for not having enough money to pay your taxes. "
That is, if you intentionally avoid paying taxes by either not filing or filing a fraudulent report, then you certain can go to jail. See Al Capone for the most famous example.
"You can go to jail for not filing your taxes. You can go to jail for lying on your return. But you can’t go to jail for not having enough money to pay your taxes. "
That is, if you intentionally avoid paying taxes by either not filing or filing a fraudulent report, then you certain can go to jail. See Al Capone for the most famous example.
I too read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager.
This is reasonable. I'd prefer that rather than forcibly collecting taxes, non-payers could simply be, peacefully, stripped of citizenship and exiled.
Yep, it is totally "non violent" to throw people into the sea, where they can be "non violently drowned to death".
The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of a nation.
If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is not a particularly controversial opinion to have.
But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.
The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of a nation.
If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is not a particularly controversial opinion to have.
But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.
> If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is not a particularly controversial opinion to have.
If someone is squatting in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it, you are justified in evicting them.
> The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of a nation.
This has been true since basically the dawn of human civilization. Just in those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.
> But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.
Owning land is a concept that only exists inside of a system of government with a mechanism to enforce property rights. If they decide they don't want to be subject to the rules of society, they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
If someone is squatting in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it, you are justified in evicting them.
> The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of a nation.
This has been true since basically the dawn of human civilization. Just in those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.
> But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.
Owning land is a concept that only exists inside of a system of government with a mechanism to enforce property rights. If they decide they don't want to be subject to the rules of society, they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
>
kaibee 1 hour ago | parent | on: The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Tax...
> If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is not a particularly controversial opinion to have. If someone is squatting in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it, you are justified in evicting them
This argument is only valid if you believe that the 200 countries in the world own every single inch of land in the world.
> . Just in those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.
Yes, and this would be described as violence.
And that's fine. If you believe in the authority of the monopoly on violence of governments, all you have to do is say so! That's it!
This is merely a descriptive claim I am making. That the act of owning every plot of land in the world, and preventing other people from owning it, and then kicking people off of 100% of the land, is violence.
If there was an ever expanding mirror world, where people could up and leave too, then this would not be violence.
Or in other words, owning 100% of something is violence, but owning 0.00001 % of something is not.
And all you have to do is say that you support the uncontroversial opinion of the government monopoly on violence, and we are good to go. Easy!
> If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is not a particularly controversial opinion to have. If someone is squatting in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it, you are justified in evicting them
This argument is only valid if you believe that the 200 countries in the world own every single inch of land in the world.
> . Just in those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.
Yes, and this would be described as violence.
And that's fine. If you believe in the authority of the monopoly on violence of governments, all you have to do is say so! That's it!
This is merely a descriptive claim I am making. That the act of owning every plot of land in the world, and preventing other people from owning it, and then kicking people off of 100% of the land, is violence.
If there was an ever expanding mirror world, where people could up and leave too, then this would not be violence.
Or in other words, owning 100% of something is violence, but owning 0.00001 % of something is not.
And all you have to do is say that you support the uncontroversial opinion of the government monopoly on violence, and we are good to go. Easy!
"Peacefully exiled" would have to turn into "forcefully exiled" the moment you ran into someone who would not cooperate with being exiled...
Governance matters.
My feelings are similar to yours when it comes to paying my LOCAL taxes (e.g. property and sales). Because:
(1) I care about the services that my local government provides (e.g. schools, parks, libraries, roads and infrastructure), and
(2) My local county happens to do a good job at providing those services.
On the contrary, I view the FEDERAL government as a complete and utter mess. Spending all of my contributions (as well as those borrowed from my grandkids) on grotesquely inefficient entitlement programs, an imperial military, and basically just bribing corrupt government officials so that anything can get passed at all. I feel no moral qualms whatever with avoiding those taxes to the extent legally possible.
My feelings are similar to yours when it comes to paying my LOCAL taxes (e.g. property and sales). Because:
(1) I care about the services that my local government provides (e.g. schools, parks, libraries, roads and infrastructure), and
(2) My local county happens to do a good job at providing those services.
On the contrary, I view the FEDERAL government as a complete and utter mess. Spending all of my contributions (as well as those borrowed from my grandkids) on grotesquely inefficient entitlement programs, an imperial military, and basically just bribing corrupt government officials so that anything can get passed at all. I feel no moral qualms whatever with avoiding those taxes to the extent legally possible.
> On the contrary, I view the FEDERAL government as a complete and utter mess.
Medicare is one of the most successful government programs ever. Social Security would be a disaster if done by different jurisdictions or privately. I could go on, but there's a lot that Federal government does right.
Governance matters, so I vote for the people who think likewise.
Medicare is one of the most successful government programs ever. Social Security would be a disaster if done by different jurisdictions or privately. I could go on, but there's a lot that Federal government does right.
Governance matters, so I vote for the people who think likewise.
>Medicare is one of the most successful government programs ever.
I guess it depends on how you define successful. It’s the single largest budget item (>$1T/year), it’s largely wasteful, and our populace is only getting sicker (more chronic conditions and medications). We don’t aim to treat chronic illness in Medicare patients either we aim to manage it...it’s broken. And if you don’t believe it’s broken, all you need to do is look at the current transition from pay per service to outcome/managed based reimbursements to see even CMS has waived the white flag. Care will only decline as your Medicare insurer will own your primary care doctor, your specialists, the local hospital and your pharmacy under this system.
>Social Security would be a disaster if done by different jurisdictions or privately.
Have you received your SOcial Security Administration Statement? I don’t know about yours, I guess it varies by retirement age, but the last one I got informed me I should expect to receive $.42 for every $1 I put in...that is a broken system.
I guess it depends on how you define successful. It’s the single largest budget item (>$1T/year), it’s largely wasteful, and our populace is only getting sicker (more chronic conditions and medications). We don’t aim to treat chronic illness in Medicare patients either we aim to manage it...it’s broken. And if you don’t believe it’s broken, all you need to do is look at the current transition from pay per service to outcome/managed based reimbursements to see even CMS has waived the white flag. Care will only decline as your Medicare insurer will own your primary care doctor, your specialists, the local hospital and your pharmacy under this system.
>Social Security would be a disaster if done by different jurisdictions or privately.
Have you received your SOcial Security Administration Statement? I don’t know about yours, I guess it varies by retirement age, but the last one I got informed me I should expect to receive $.42 for every $1 I put in...that is a broken system.
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance even given its only providing services to the most vulnerable (and costly) population.
If the risk pool were to expand to the entire age set, it would probably completely outcompete any private options.
If the risk pool were to expand to the entire age set, it would probably completely outcompete any private options.
>Medicare is more efficient than private insurance even given its only providing services to the most vulnerable (and costly) population.
That’s what makes it so inefficient.
In the 70’s, private insurance got into Medicare.
In 2003 the flood gates opened with Medicare “Advatage Plans” which are private insurance managed care. The numbers of patients opting for Medicare Advantage is growing every year and now accounts for 1 in 3 Medicare patients...and they’re often the chronic care patients (most vulnerable and costly).
This has directly lead to market consolidation (lack of choice in plans, networks, doctors). It has also lead to outcomes based reimbursement while the market leaders are reinventing HMO so they can get paid for a managed care system and not be subject to outcomes based payments.
I’d be all for a system like you’re talking about, a single payer system, but that doesn’t exist, and private insurance is running amuck with the $1T+ Medicare budget.
That’s what makes it so inefficient.
In the 70’s, private insurance got into Medicare.
In 2003 the flood gates opened with Medicare “Advatage Plans” which are private insurance managed care. The numbers of patients opting for Medicare Advantage is growing every year and now accounts for 1 in 3 Medicare patients...and they’re often the chronic care patients (most vulnerable and costly).
This has directly lead to market consolidation (lack of choice in plans, networks, doctors). It has also lead to outcomes based reimbursement while the market leaders are reinventing HMO so they can get paid for a managed care system and not be subject to outcomes based payments.
I’d be all for a system like you’re talking about, a single payer system, but that doesn’t exist, and private insurance is running amuck with the $1T+ Medicare budget.
So you're complaining that Medicare sucks because it got privatized, so you want to abandon or not pay for it?
Do you have a link to the 70s history? Wikipedia got nothing.
As to Advantage and the Donut hole for Part D - who should we blame for that?
Do you have a link to the 70s history? Wikipedia got nothing.
As to Advantage and the Donut hole for Part D - who should we blame for that?
>So you're complaining that Medicare sucks because it got privatized
You said it was successful and efficient. I don’t agree.
You said it’s more efficient than private insurance. I don’t need to disagree, because that’s not even close to a realistic picture, it’s quasi-privatized, with 33% of Medicare patients opting for private insurance for their Medicare and more joining every year.
Bush enacted Medicare Part D because millions of patients couldn’t afford their drugs (millions getting free care and no drugs is broken and Bush tried Part D as a proposed fix), the fix failed and Obama tried to gut part D in its entirety because of the runaway waste and inefficiency but his party stopped him because it’s not politically advisable for the left take away benefits, so Part D was amended (still being rolled out) under the ACA (Obamacare). Just one example under the changes, doctors are incentivized (paid bonus’s) to keep electronic records of patients and another bonus to turn patient records over to the government and if they don’t they get penalized. It’s a gross and broken system, most people don’t even know Medicare patient records are turned over to the government.
Want to see the problem with managed care...look at HMOs, which under Obamacare have been rebranded to ACOs. Basically the private insurance opts out of outcomes based payments (which are failing anyway and no one wants a part of that, because it’s insruance dictating how you treat patients) and the insurance owned networks do managed care get paid $x/patient per year and they water down services to ensure they turn the max profit.
You said it was successful and efficient. I don’t agree.
You said it’s more efficient than private insurance. I don’t need to disagree, because that’s not even close to a realistic picture, it’s quasi-privatized, with 33% of Medicare patients opting for private insurance for their Medicare and more joining every year.
Bush enacted Medicare Part D because millions of patients couldn’t afford their drugs (millions getting free care and no drugs is broken and Bush tried Part D as a proposed fix), the fix failed and Obama tried to gut part D in its entirety because of the runaway waste and inefficiency but his party stopped him because it’s not politically advisable for the left take away benefits, so Part D was amended (still being rolled out) under the ACA (Obamacare). Just one example under the changes, doctors are incentivized (paid bonus’s) to keep electronic records of patients and another bonus to turn patient records over to the government and if they don’t they get penalized. It’s a gross and broken system, most people don’t even know Medicare patient records are turned over to the government.
Want to see the problem with managed care...look at HMOs, which under Obamacare have been rebranded to ACOs. Basically the private insurance opts out of outcomes based payments (which are failing anyway and no one wants a part of that, because it’s insruance dictating how you treat patients) and the insurance owned networks do managed care get paid $x/patient per year and they water down services to ensure they turn the max profit.
You know your local infrastructure would collapse or become breathtakingly costly if it wasn't propped up by Federal funds, right?
I live in New York; we remit something like $50B/year more to the Federal government than we receive. I paid about $650K to the Feds last year, and while I don't begrudge the shared responsibility, it's hard not to feel like a prime sucker sending so much to a government that will to allocate it mostly to states whose inhabitants voted for a President who would agree that I was foolish to have been so honest.
[deleted]
Like you, the President has a place in New York and he lived there until he became eligible for government housing in DC. I think you have his sympathy on the taxes. There was that one year that he paid for an F-15 with all the extras.
Forgive me for not feeling sorry for somebody pulling in 7 figures a year.
This is a straw man argument that hand waives away all of the issues and complaints of the people who protest the federal government. One doesn't need to believe in anarchy to believe that the federal government is out of control and should be heavily reformed.
Inefficiency is its own extra ‘tax’ and inherent to any sufficiently large complex system. But if the federal government didn’t in fact have meaningfully nonzero efficacy, your life would be considerably worse. Pay your taxes.
I just don't like filling out the paperwork. It is like torture every year. I also dont particularly like the government keeping track of where everyone works.
Bear in mind that anti-tax groups, and other profiteers of inefficiency (Grover Norquist, Intuit, et. al) actively lobby to make paying taxes as painful as possible so you will hate paying taxes period.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax...
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-maker-of-turbotax...
Hardly. If taxes were "as painful as possible" we wouldn't have automatic withholding. Right now almost everyone pays via automatic withholding so they never see the money in the first place, and the defaults are set so most people get a small refund. If you want to see "painful as possible", make people write a check for the full amount every April.
Grover Norquist's own words:
"That’s the real reason the Left and the government class supports IRS-prepared tax returns: they want the government to be bigger, and that requires higher tax revenues. The fact that IRS tax preparation is understood by everyone to result in higher tax revenues exposes the conflict of interest that would be caused by IRS-prepared tax returns."
From https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/grover-norqui...
That argument is disingenuous at best.
"That’s the real reason the Left and the government class supports IRS-prepared tax returns: they want the government to be bigger, and that requires higher tax revenues. The fact that IRS tax preparation is understood by everyone to result in higher tax revenues exposes the conflict of interest that would be caused by IRS-prepared tax returns."
From https://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/grover-norqui...
That argument is disingenuous at best.
Also bare in mind that it's not an accident that April 15 is approximately 6 months away from general elections in November (basically couldn't be further away). Politicians' campaigns would have a different spin if folks had just recently filed their taxes.
I take pride in efficient services provided by taxation, and have extreme contempt for arbitrary taxation to support those that are inefficient, sometimes arrogantly so.
In Toronto, the folks that collect change at the TTC (i.e Metro) stations, earn over $100K a year if they work over time.
On my last visit - I had to stand in line for 20 minutes merely to buy a token with change. There were no change machines and no means for me to use even a debit/credit card.
The 'pass' that they offer (i.e. you load it up, more for commuters) cannot even be bought by the people selling tokens. It's absurd and outrageous. Granted there is some overlap of systems going on as they move to the new pass system - it's still stupendously insulting.
In Toronto, the folks that collect change at the TTC (i.e Metro) stations, earn over $100K a year if they work over time.
On my last visit - I had to stand in line for 20 minutes merely to buy a token with change. There were no change machines and no means for me to use even a debit/credit card.
The 'pass' that they offer (i.e. you load it up, more for commuters) cannot even be bought by the people selling tokens. It's absurd and outrageous. Granted there is some overlap of systems going on as they move to the new pass system - it's still stupendously insulting.
> I take pride in paying my taxes. It reminds me that our society has a cost, and we all contribute towards it.
Society's cost needs to be constrained by taxpayers. We need to put pressure on our governments to spend our tax dollars efficiently.
I live in California, so I pay state income tax as well as Federal income tax. I don't think I get as much per dollar of my tax as someone in Europe does. Europeans pay a little bit more than me (yes, only a little bit, I did the math) and get a lot more from their government, including comprehensive public transit that makes transit in the USA look like a joke, a much better social safety net, comprehensive health care not tied to their employers, schools that are actually good, low-cost higher education, etc. People in the UK get more from their government under Tory austerity policies than Americans ever got.
I don't want to pay more taxes until I get more for each dollar. If the Europeans can do it, so can we, but the political will does not exist here.
Society's cost needs to be constrained by taxpayers. We need to put pressure on our governments to spend our tax dollars efficiently.
I live in California, so I pay state income tax as well as Federal income tax. I don't think I get as much per dollar of my tax as someone in Europe does. Europeans pay a little bit more than me (yes, only a little bit, I did the math) and get a lot more from their government, including comprehensive public transit that makes transit in the USA look like a joke, a much better social safety net, comprehensive health care not tied to their employers, schools that are actually good, low-cost higher education, etc. People in the UK get more from their government under Tory austerity policies than Americans ever got.
I don't want to pay more taxes until I get more for each dollar. If the Europeans can do it, so can we, but the political will does not exist here.
Your tax dollars pay for a lot more military than the Europeans do.
My California tax dollars don't. And I'm not always sure what I get for them.
Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...
Do you have a source for this?
That WE pay (or more) for THEIR military.
That WE pay (or more) for THEIR military.
The argument is not that the US is literally paying for country X's military. It's that counties benefit from being under the US's umbrella (such as through NATO), and thus do not spend as much as they would if the US had a much smaller military. This has been a major talking point of the current president [0].
The more nuanced question is if the resulting power + influence is worth the cost for the US.
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html
The more nuanced question is if the resulting power + influence is worth the cost for the US.
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/nato-spending-2017.html
Your source _completely_ glances over the fact that the EU's total budget is spend on defending Europe while the US budget is not only for protecting itself and NATO but also Korea, Japan, Philippines and many more for a total of some 700(!!!) foreign military bases.
To then simply conclude that the US spends '70% of NATO defense spending' is incorrect since you inflate it with cost for defending a lot of territories outside of NATOs scope.
Of course the US pays more in total, but the EU doesn't have 700 military bases outside of the EU.
To then simply conclude that the US spends '70% of NATO defense spending' is incorrect since you inflate it with cost for defending a lot of territories outside of NATOs scope.
Of course the US pays more in total, but the EU doesn't have 700 military bases outside of the EU.
We don't have any bases in PI, and Japan pays for the bases we have there. I'm not sure about Korea.
Very different situation than Europe.
Very different situation than Europe.
And Germany pays for the bases there. It's not so different.
The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
The US puts the military where it wants to because it serves the US's interest. Don't believe for a second that it's to "protect Europe."
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of NATO. We spend all the money on defense and we put bases all over the world to protect the countries they are in.
Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
Does this serve US interests? Unquestionably. That doesn't invalidate my statement.
Yeah. I'm familiar. NATO is a joint treaty that obligates all members to come to the defense of other members. It was formed post world war II at the behest of the USA in order to combat political influence from the USSR in Europe.
The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations.
The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks.
The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.
The USA doesn't fund NATO. Funding for NATO comes from all member organizations. All member organizations provide troops and materiel for joint operations.
The US spends "all the money on defense" because it's a fantastic government jobs program for mostly white folks.
The US has bases around the world to influence local politics. The idea that it's to protect those countries is simplistic at best.
There are only five of the 29 member states of NATO that meet the NATO requirement for defense spending. Germany isn't one of them. The US spends nearly double the requirement, which in actual numbers works out to the majority of the funding anyway (72%). The next three countries combined get to 20%, that's UK, France, and Germany.
The NATO direct budget is paid 22% by the US, 14% by Germany, 10% by the UK. The rest of the contributions are all less than 10% of the budget. So yes, the US does fund NATO, both with direct and indirect costs. The EU can afford to not spend money on their defense because we exist, and because we base our assets there.
Influencing local politics is not the primary reason for having bases located remotely, in many cases it doesn't even happen. The idea that we put them there to "influence local politics" is actually the simplistic explanation that really doesn't begin to describe how the world works. The US presence in Germany has nothing to do with influencing anything in Germany, the US presence in Korea has nothing to do with influencing Korea, the US presence in Spain has nothing to do with influencing Spain, etc.
The NATO direct budget is paid 22% by the US, 14% by Germany, 10% by the UK. The rest of the contributions are all less than 10% of the budget. So yes, the US does fund NATO, both with direct and indirect costs. The EU can afford to not spend money on their defense because we exist, and because we base our assets there.
Influencing local politics is not the primary reason for having bases located remotely, in many cases it doesn't even happen. The idea that we put them there to "influence local politics" is actually the simplistic explanation that really doesn't begin to describe how the world works. The US presence in Germany has nothing to do with influencing anything in Germany, the US presence in Korea has nothing to do with influencing Korea, the US presence in Spain has nothing to do with influencing Spain, etc.
You use the words "benefit" an "umbrella" that are actually euphemisms for the military occupation of defeated countries after WWII.
A country does not benefit having another country occupying their land. Germany is the fourth manufacturer of weapons of the world, they do not need to be defended or protected like the world "umbrella" implies, they can do it on their own.
If the Germans-Europeans had to pay for all the cost involved in the occupation there will be no reason to have the US army on Europe's land.
A country does not benefit having another country occupying their land. Germany is the fourth manufacturer of weapons of the world, they do not need to be defended or protected like the world "umbrella" implies, they can do it on their own.
If the Germans-Europeans had to pay for all the cost involved in the occupation there will be no reason to have the US army on Europe's land.
I understand that. We don’t pay for anyone’s military but ours. If our spending in our alliances is high, and there’s a way to bring the cost down, we should be doing it.
But that’s not what OP said. He/she is speaking in absolutes: “Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...” it helps no one and I wanted to call them out on their lie.
But that’s not what OP said. He/she is speaking in absolutes: “Our tax dollars pay for more of their military than they do...” it helps no one and I wanted to call them out on their lie.
As a European I agree and I also think European countries as a whole are hugely inefficient on how they use tax money. We should pay taxes and we should demand ever increasing efficiency with equal great enthusiasm.
If you guys think that Europe or the US are inefficient in using tax money, try looking at Brazil and see what inefficient really looks like.
No doubt. I have many Brazilian friends and all I can say is "holy fuck". I'm sorry your country is so damaged.
I think this is the challenge. Balancing efficiency and contributions.
If government is over-budgeted, it can become lazy, tempted to put some of it in their pockets, etc.
Under-budgeted, it can break down, such as what is hapenning to Greece.
That's just a hard problem honestly. With no clear answers.
That said, I do feel in the US, people don't actually want the government to give them anything. They're against having it offer affordable health-care, or education, or child care, or paternity/maternity leaves, or environmental safeguards, or proper water cleaning facilities, or art projects, or fund research, etc.
So on one hand people are dismissive of most things the government could provide. But on the other hand, the money is still collected in taxes, it just goes in other things.
I think it hurts priority discussions a bit. It would be one thing to say, cut taxes. But it's another to say, given the current budget, don't spend it on anything nice, because that would be too communist of us.
So where does all the money go then? Military?
If government is over-budgeted, it can become lazy, tempted to put some of it in their pockets, etc.
Under-budgeted, it can break down, such as what is hapenning to Greece.
That's just a hard problem honestly. With no clear answers.
That said, I do feel in the US, people don't actually want the government to give them anything. They're against having it offer affordable health-care, or education, or child care, or paternity/maternity leaves, or environmental safeguards, or proper water cleaning facilities, or art projects, or fund research, etc.
So on one hand people are dismissive of most things the government could provide. But on the other hand, the money is still collected in taxes, it just goes in other things.
I think it hurts priority discussions a bit. It would be one thing to say, cut taxes. But it's another to say, given the current budget, don't spend it on anything nice, because that would be too communist of us.
So where does all the money go then? Military?
Maybe if we had simpler tax code instead of byzantine monstrosity that happens now, when even professionals can't be sure if particular payment is right, and there's no hope regular citizen can figure it out - we'd not need as much funding to the IRS as we need now. But that would mean giving up the power to control people's decisions by messing with taxation - one of the most powerful levers of control Federal Government can have over the private citizen (Obamacare individual mandate has been deemed a "tax", because that'd make it within Fed's constitutional powers) and one of the most powerful levers to control the economy. Having simple tax code removes that power, and that's why it would not become simple.
> letting the poor commit too much fraud
> Cutting the IRS’s budget didn’t make sense to him. It was one of the few areas of government that had a positive return on investment
> Since the IRS-reform bill in 1998, the agency is prohibited from evaluating agents based on how much money they bring in. Instead, they are evaluated on how efficiently they open and close audits
I find these pretty interesting. It does feel a little fishy, given the IRS can actually be a revenue generating center for the government. Which would be very different if it was costing more then it brought in.
> Cutting the IRS’s budget didn’t make sense to him. It was one of the few areas of government that had a positive return on investment
> Since the IRS-reform bill in 1998, the agency is prohibited from evaluating agents based on how much money they bring in. Instead, they are evaluated on how efficiently they open and close audits
I find these pretty interesting. It does feel a little fishy, given the IRS can actually be a revenue generating center for the government. Which would be very different if it was costing more then it brought in.
From the same source, for some context:
"Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives", from early on in the scandal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-t...
After the evidence was overwhelming and denial was impossible:
"New Documents Show the IRS Targeted 'Progressive' and 'Tea Party' Groups for Extra Scrutiny"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/new-doc...
"Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives", from early on in the scandal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-t...
After the evidence was overwhelming and denial was impossible:
"New Documents Show the IRS Targeted 'Progressive' and 'Tea Party' Groups for Extra Scrutiny"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/new-doc...
Seems to me, though I'm not American, that many Americans take issue with the arduous process of paying tax in America. I suggest you take a look at Estonia's tax collection system and it's efficiency as a potential model.
The IRS administers and enforces the income tax laws beyond the parameters of the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President as well as beyond the parameters laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, the IRS’s own internal procedures, manuals and literature itself indicate the IRS knowingly deceives the American public about the scope of its true income tax authority.
In addition, consider this: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/irs-12-million-illegal-alien...
In addition, consider this: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/irs-12-million-illegal-alien...
All very sad. It is time to bring the wealthiest back to heel. Companies and individuals cannot be above the law or the states which sustain their lives and businesses will crumble. Time to take back control.
It is impossible to revert. Rich people own the world and unless they are willing to sacrifice their wealth/power, there is no other solution other than revolt/war.
Or you can organize and vote. This is still a democracy.
In theory, yes. I won't hold my breath.
This (the USA, at least) is a constitutional republic. You have representation and you have constitutional rights. In a democracy, a plurality of the people can vote to do whatever they want to you. In a constitutional republic, a supermajority has to change the nature of your rights in order to violate them.
It's an important distinction.
It's an important distinction.
The USA is a symmetric federalist constitutional republican representative democracy. This is a form of democracy.
"Democracy" is a family of types of government, of which the absolute democracy many imagine in one form. A representative democracy is another.
"Democracy" is a family of types of government, of which the absolute democracy many imagine in one form. A representative democracy is another.
A colorful illustration of the value of such checks on power would be the incident in which a single majority vote in the legislature of imperial Athens sufficed to send off a galley to their rebellious colony of Mytilene, with orders to put every male inhabitant to the sword.
As it happened, the next day the assembly changed its mind, and sent off another galley rescinding the order. The second galley was indeed able to overtake the first in time. Thucydides attributed this to deliberate slowness by the captain of the first.
As it happened, the next day the assembly changed its mind, and sent off another galley rescinding the order. The second galley was indeed able to overtake the first in time. Thucydides attributed this to deliberate slowness by the captain of the first.
Go and read about Jeremy Corbyn. The UK at least stands a chance of fighting this.
Classic "Republican" playbook: instead of killing a govt agency/service directly, slowly de-fund it over years until it's crippled, then use said crippled state as "you see, the state just can't provide healthcare/telecom/infrastructure efficiently, it must be privatized" justification, then deliver the remainders on a silver platter for the ultra rich to siphon the profits off.
Not clear what their plan is in this case though. You can't exactly privatize gov tax collection at least not in a way that wouldn't result in billions of dollars for fraud and even more lost revenue.
If they cared about losing money to fraud we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
They have enough money that they don't care what happens to the rest of us.
mschuster91(2)
That's how a country dies eventually.
An IRS budget of $14B means each person in the USA is paying $43 per year to fund the agency (including children).
At the Federal minimum wage, after taxes, that's about a full working day to pay it off. If you have a non-working spouse and one child, three working days.
So it seems like a lot to me.
Here's an idea, why don't we simplify our Byzantine tax filing processes so that the whole thing doesn't cost so much. I know, I know, all that sweet H&R Block tax lobbyist money is addictive, but it would be better for the country if congress would put down the pipe.
So it seems like a lot to me.
Here's an idea, why don't we simplify our Byzantine tax filing processes so that the whole thing doesn't cost so much. I know, I know, all that sweet H&R Block tax lobbyist money is addictive, but it would be better for the country if congress would put down the pipe.
A US military budget of $660,000,000,000 means each person the USA is paying $2030 to fund the military (including children). At the Federal minimum wage, after taxes, that's 47 full working days to pay it off.
So that seems like a lot more to me.
So that seems like a lot more to me.
Luckily, we can focus on more than one thing at a time. We can oppose foreign interventionist wars and reform the tax code at the same time.
The military budget being too big doesn't mean that the IRS budget isn't either.
Our tax code is absurd, and held captive to interests that like to keep it that way (the wealthy who can dodge or bother to itemize expenses, and companies who get to tax us to figure out how it all works). We should fix that and reduce the IRS budget further, as well as reduce military spending.
Our tax code is absurd, and held captive to interests that like to keep it that way (the wealthy who can dodge or bother to itemize expenses, and companies who get to tax us to figure out how it all works). We should fix that and reduce the IRS budget further, as well as reduce military spending.
I think having best military in the world for only $2K per year is not bad a deal. I spend more on gym membership. Of course, given that not each person in the US actually pays taxes, and of those who does, they are distributed very unevenly, my actual share is significantly higher, so I wouldn't mind some cuts there.
So our whole military is funded from only 2k a person. That's amazing! I always thought military was a huge part of the budget but it's clearly not.
For better or worse the federal budget for 2019 is $3,422 billion: spending a mere 0.004% of the budget on tax collection seems like a pretty good deal!
There's no budget, and hasn't been for years. Just a stream of continuing resolutions to keep feeding the locust
$14B is ~0.4% of $3422B, not 0.004%. You’re off by a factor of 100.
I don't disagree that it'd be better to simplify the tax code but the idea that one dollar spend yields seven dollars return doesn't actually work as you're describing.
(this paragraph will assume funding for the IRS is done as a flat tax which is how $43 was arrived at)
Most people might pay $50 per year to fund the agency while a lot of people are paying nothing. Increasing the budget to reduce evasion will lower how much most people pay closer to that theoretical $43 while also increasing revenue overall. Right now it isn't a problem of the common person getting extorted by the government, the issue is that some people are not paying their fair share and increasing funding to the IRS will catch and punish those people while increasing the funding for the government overall.
I am with you on wanting a saner tax system but that isn't really in scope here. Some people are cheating the tax system and it isn't expensive to find and rectify the situation, it isn't even cheap. Tax law enforcement is so lax right now that lowering tax enforcement _costs money_ raising tax enforcement _yields money_ (for a while, there are eventually diminishing returns)
So long as the IRS is taking in more money than it is spending to do so there is absolutely no rational reason not to make sure it can maximize that.
(this paragraph will assume funding for the IRS is done as a flat tax which is how $43 was arrived at)
Most people might pay $50 per year to fund the agency while a lot of people are paying nothing. Increasing the budget to reduce evasion will lower how much most people pay closer to that theoretical $43 while also increasing revenue overall. Right now it isn't a problem of the common person getting extorted by the government, the issue is that some people are not paying their fair share and increasing funding to the IRS will catch and punish those people while increasing the funding for the government overall.
I am with you on wanting a saner tax system but that isn't really in scope here. Some people are cheating the tax system and it isn't expensive to find and rectify the situation, it isn't even cheap. Tax law enforcement is so lax right now that lowering tax enforcement _costs money_ raising tax enforcement _yields money_ (for a while, there are eventually diminishing returns)
So long as the IRS is taking in more money than it is spending to do so there is absolutely no rational reason not to make sure it can maximize that.
I would certainly pay more to ensure equity in tax collection.
> So it seems like a lot to me.
I've no problem paying taxes, they buy me civilization.
> why don't we simplify our Byzantine tax filing processes so that the whole thing doesn't cost so much
That's actually a very good idea. Fewer loopholes too, which are exploited by the haves at the expense of have-nots.
I've no problem paying taxes, they buy me civilization.
> why don't we simplify our Byzantine tax filing processes so that the whole thing doesn't cost so much
That's actually a very good idea. Fewer loopholes too, which are exploited by the haves at the expense of have-nots.
> I've no problem paying taxes, they buy me civilization.
They do, but this line of argumentation is kind of vacuous if you don't include the actual cost of taxes. If taxes could be 1/3 of what everyone is paying, thus buying the same civilization except much more prosperous since money is used a lot more productively and people have much more choice about where it goes, isn't that better? (This 1/3 isn't meant to be a real number; it's a thought experiment).
Alternative way of looking at it -- if this argument works without cost, then why shouldn't everyone just pay 100% taxes?
They do, but this line of argumentation is kind of vacuous if you don't include the actual cost of taxes. If taxes could be 1/3 of what everyone is paying, thus buying the same civilization except much more prosperous since money is used a lot more productively and people have much more choice about where it goes, isn't that better? (This 1/3 isn't meant to be a real number; it's a thought experiment).
Alternative way of looking at it -- if this argument works without cost, then why shouldn't everyone just pay 100% taxes?
But, the opposite it true too. If paying 10% more gets you 40% better outcomes wouldn't make sense to pay the 10%.
The problem is a lot of times the desired outcomes aren't simple. Nor are the solutions. And experts and their opinions are generally for hire anymore.
The problem is a lot of times the desired outcomes aren't simple. Nor are the solutions. And experts and their opinions are generally for hire anymore.
> I've no problem paying taxes, they buy me civilization.
This argument is vacuous because taxes aren't about what you pay, they're about what you can make others pay.
You are always free to pay whatever you want out of your own funds for the things you think of as "civilization". That isn't a tax, because it's voluntary. The only reason to support a tax is that there are things that you want (your so-called "civilization") which you want other people to pay for, whether they want these things or not.
This argument is vacuous because taxes aren't about what you pay, they're about what you can make others pay.
You are always free to pay whatever you want out of your own funds for the things you think of as "civilization". That isn't a tax, because it's voluntary. The only reason to support a tax is that there are things that you want (your so-called "civilization") which you want other people to pay for, whether they want these things or not.
Please see this comment by a sibling poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18658762 . It sounds like it is money well spent, but it could definitely be improved.
Under this logic every agency deserves to have a bigger budget until the budget is equal to the amount of money it brings in -- i.e. bloat up to maximum size. I don't think anyone wants that.
It makes sense to try to keep government agencies operating efficiently. Unfortunately I don't trust today's journalism to give me an accurate picture of whether what's going on falls into that category or not.
It makes sense to try to keep government agencies operating efficiently. Unfortunately I don't trust today's journalism to give me an accurate picture of whether what's going on falls into that category or not.
No, it means the budget should increase until the marginal ROI becomes zero; the idea is to maximize profit rather than revenue.
I apologize if my question is leading : why should the government be considering with the concept of profit at all? It's not a business.
Because resources in a society don't just grow on trees. The government using resources means that those resources are not available for other uses. We therefore care (at least somewhat) about the efficiency of government use of resources.
That's not the same as "concern for profit". And yet, the question of cost-benefit is pretty much the same question, but in terms of society as a whole.
That's not the same as "concern for profit". And yet, the question of cost-benefit is pretty much the same question, but in terms of society as a whole.
The key problem is this insidious idea that money brought in by the IRS is "profit", or even just "revenue". That's only the case if you're looking at the IRS in isolation. The government, and by extension the IRS, is supposedly working for society. Money moving from the private sector to the public sector is not "revenue" from society's point of view; it's more like shifting money between two different bank accounts within the same organization. Money which the IRS doesn't collect is still part of society, and still doing good—just not under the auspices of the government. So the question is, for every dollar spent on the IRS, how much money is shifted from the private sector to the public sector; but more importantly, per dollar spent on the IRS, how much benefit is there to having the government spend that money instead of the private party that earned it? (Some would suggest that this "benefit" is negative even if the IRS could achieve perfect enforcement of the tax code for free...)
In your opinion, are there government agencies that spend there budget well? If so, then please share some examples.
> "No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for every dollar spent. Shareholders would rebel and bring lawsuits, or at least oust the management or board of directors," Olson wrote in her preface to the report. "Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS budget."[0]
Sounds like the IRS should be the most funded government agency.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-deli...
Sounds like the IRS should be the most funded government agency.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-deli...
Yeah, especially because tax avoidance is an insanely difficult problem to fight once it gets big enough. I mean it's impossible to prosecute at once even 10% of the country for not paying taxes.
Imagine the US going through a Greece episode, which was caused in big part by tax avoidance. To this day it's perfectly fine in Greece to ask for a ~20% "cash discount" in almost any shop, which of course means simply not paying the VAT tax (similar to the US sales tax).
Edit: let me self-correct - this does not seem to be an actual problem in the US - with this plot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Government_respo...
Imagine the US going through a Greece episode, which was caused in big part by tax avoidance. To this day it's perfectly fine in Greece to ask for a ~20% "cash discount" in almost any shop, which of course means simply not paying the VAT tax (similar to the US sales tax).
Edit: let me self-correct - this does not seem to be an actual problem in the US - with this plot: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Government_respo...
The US has a very high tax compliance rate because most of our income is reported through 3rd parties (w2, 1099, etc.). For income that is not reported through a 3rd party, we have low compliance rates as well. For income subject to little or no information reporting, the misreported income is 63% of total according to the IRS. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/p1415.pdf
>> because most of our income is reported through 3rd parties
For most people and most of their income. I seriously doubt it true that most income, as in >50% of all income earned by all US entities, is so reported. Corporate income is massive. Corporations, the wealthy, private contractors ... their income is not automatically reported. Note too that "income" includes all income, not just net profits subject to tax.
For most people and most of their income. I seriously doubt it true that most income, as in >50% of all income earned by all US entities, is so reported. Corporate income is massive. Corporations, the wealthy, private contractors ... their income is not automatically reported. Note too that "income" includes all income, not just net profits subject to tax.
Indeed. It is trivially easy to get people to conspire to evade taxes for the benefit of other people for similar payment to that they could get working for clean companies when they could pay massive fines or go to prison for doing so. Equally it is simple to find these people when any one of them could go to the government and inform them of your illegal actions when first informed or as a whistleblower after years doing so.
The difference between the US and Mexico in terms of corruption is not that the people in the US are pure of heart, it’s that coordinating corrupt and illegal activities is next to impossible when law enforcement are clean.
The difference between the US and Mexico in terms of corruption is not that the people in the US are pure of heart, it’s that coordinating corrupt and illegal activities is next to impossible when law enforcement are clean.
> when law enforcement are clean
What are some differences between law enforcement in the US and Mexico?
What are some differences between law enforcement in the US and Mexico?
Fundamentally, that the FBI is run by people who don’t take bribes and who promote people who find corruption in state or local law enforcement or other government offices. In Mexico there are states where the chief of police is owned by the narcos, in the US, a single department being corrupt from top to bottom is probably the biggest scandal since WWII.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
It has diminishing returns, but right now the budget is still on the steep part of the graph so funding it makes a lot of sense unless you're a tax cheat.
> "No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for every dollar spent.
> "Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS budget."
They might, if $8 out of the $7 brought in by that unit were cannibalized from other units.
> "Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS budget."
They might, if $8 out of the $7 brought in by that unit were cannibalized from other units.
[deleted]
Except the math is the opposite: for every dollar the IRS spends, people lose 7 dollars.
If all the money were to go to the IRS, congratulations, you achieved communism.
If all the money were to go to the IRS, congratulations, you achieved communism.
If only... It costs 7 dollars plus hundreds of dollars in lawyer and attorney's fees to properly prove in an audit that you paid your taxes
Imagine if VISA charged a 14% fee on your tax payments. That's the math here.
Perhaps the previous paragraph of context helps:
> IRS Funding Decisions Fail to Take Into Account “Return on Investment.” On a budget of $11.8 billion, the IRS collected $2.52 trillion in FY 2012. That translates to an average return-on-investment (ROI) of about 214:1. Yet the appropriations process treats the IRS like any other discretionary spending program, with no explicit recognition that each dollar appropriated for the IRS generates substantially more than one dollar in additional revenue. Last year, the IRS Commissioner estimated in a letter to Congress that proposed reductions in the IRS budget would cause tax collections to fall seven times as much. > > “No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for every dollar spent. Shareholders would rebel and bring lawsuits, or at least oust the management or board of directors,” Olson wrote in her preface to the report. “Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS budget.”
> IRS Funding Decisions Fail to Take Into Account “Return on Investment.” On a budget of $11.8 billion, the IRS collected $2.52 trillion in FY 2012. That translates to an average return-on-investment (ROI) of about 214:1. Yet the appropriations process treats the IRS like any other discretionary spending program, with no explicit recognition that each dollar appropriated for the IRS generates substantially more than one dollar in additional revenue. Last year, the IRS Commissioner estimated in a letter to Congress that proposed reductions in the IRS budget would cause tax collections to fall seven times as much. > > “No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for every dollar spent. Shareholders would rebel and bring lawsuits, or at least oust the management or board of directors,” Olson wrote in her preface to the report. “Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS budget.”
> No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for every dollar spent. Shareholders would rebel
Even if the money it brought in came mostly from the shareholders, and disproportionately those most engaged in corporate governance?
Even if the money it brought in came mostly from the shareholders, and disproportionately those most engaged in corporate governance?
I read the paragraph. It says the marginal return is 7:1.
And that's only counting the IRS's side of the costs.
And that's only counting the IRS's side of the costs.
There has to be some clever way to privatize this.
Provincial tax collectors were corrupt and despised in antiquity, I prefer a faceless centralized IRS.
Privatized prisons have worked out so well - I agree it's probably a good idea here as as well. /s
We just didn't do it cleverly enough, you silly socialist!
I'm sure we'll see an article about solving it with blockchain tomorrow.
The IRS has a $12,000,000,000 to spend, and we're worried about a few millionaires not paying their taxes? I'm much more concerned about the first part, how on earth did we give that astronomical amount of funding to that agency and what in the heck are they doing with $12b that couldn't be done with $12m?
I swear people dont understand the size of the US and the scope of problems they tackle. And think everything is a startup for 40 people putting up a SPA. There are 325 million people in the US and that's not counting any companies.
12B means ~$40 annual cost to validate each person's taxes. That's nothing. That's including tracking down fraudsters, costs of audits, ensuring correctness.
One millionaire avoiding taxes is avoiding way more than $40 of responsibility...
12B means ~$40 annual cost to validate each person's taxes. That's nothing. That's including tracking down fraudsters, costs of audits, ensuring correctness.
One millionaire avoiding taxes is avoiding way more than $40 of responsibility...
For easier math, let's assume that 330m Americans file 120m tax returns. So all in, collection, processing, auditing, technology, customer support (which is excellent btw), management, compliance, etc would be ~$0.10 per return? Even at ~$100 that seems pretty well run. Scale costs.
The number is extreme... but it's worth noting that Facebook and Google both manage more users, often with more complex information, including people intentionally trying to break and trick their systems - at very low cost.
(I'm not sure if Google/FB spend 0.10 per user, but it sure ain't anywhere near $100).
I think with a sensibly simplified tax code, and FAANG-level technical innovation, IRS costs could enter that range.
(I'm not sure if Google/FB spend 0.10 per user, but it sure ain't anywhere near $100).
I think with a sensibly simplified tax code, and FAANG-level technical innovation, IRS costs could enter that range.
[deleted]
Agreed. I’d like to see the govt spend less on military and things like funding Israel. Spend the money at home.
i guess there should be more enforcement but im not a big fan of an organization that presidents have used again their enemies. Also beauracies tend to grow over time and the amount of tax they need (both sides unfortunately). I would bet california breaks 10% sales tax this decade
The political support for underfunding the IRS comes from the complexity of the US tax code combined with the extraordinary powers of the IRS. It leaves the average taxpayer with the feeling that could be audited and even jailed at any time for non-compliance with some obscure rule.
I am an Australian and I fear the IRS more than the ATO, not because I owe the IRS anything (I am not a US taxpayer), but because I have US customers. There is probably some obscure form or reporting requirement I have missed or filled in incorrectly that could make me the target of some arbitrary action by the IRS. You can see why foreign financial institutions just won’t have anything to do with US taxpayers.
I am an Australian and I fear the IRS more than the ATO, not because I owe the IRS anything (I am not a US taxpayer), but because I have US customers. There is probably some obscure form or reporting requirement I have missed or filled in incorrectly that could make me the target of some arbitrary action by the IRS. You can see why foreign financial institutions just won’t have anything to do with US taxpayers.
That is very dismissive of some very salient complaints about how groups were targeted. Read the Wikipedia article. This isn't moonbat pizzagate nonsense. Among keywords targeted were "open source software", "medical marijuana", and "Israel".
A Democratic senator said:
> U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said, "We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we've got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy