FEMA employees set to be fired over ‘egregious’ $59M payment for NYC migrants

[HarleyER]

The poor only have so much money though, if we go with a consumption tax, once the poor’s money is spent, they’ll cease to contribute to the tax-base. Simple isn’t always better simply because it’s “simple”.

I suspect not.

Simple is always better. It is more manageable. If you doubt me, try reading the tax codes.

 

[Bradskii]

Your equation is wrong if I understand it correctly. Using your example, tax on $100 would be $1. This would represent 1%. Tax on $1,000 would be $10. It is equitable and fair.

That represents a tax on wages. Which you wish to discontinue. And replace with a consumption tax. Which might be 10% on food items. So spend $10 on food and the extra you have to pay is $1. Which represents 1% of the income of someone earning $100 a day. And which represents 0.1% of the income of someone earning $1,000 a day.

It's clearly the exact opposite of equitable and fair.

So, no. You don't understand it correctly. And I don't understand why are you arguing for a tax which you clearly do not understand.

 

[SimplyMe]

I didn't say they would be. They are additional employees. Which you already admitted. There aren't going to be 87000 retireees in the next 10 years.

Nor did I claim there would be, my recollection is the number is 52,000 retiring.

No claimed the 87000 would all br doing audits. The fact is more will be doing audits and it won't br just on the rich.
How do you know that? Can you definitely prove there havent been new hires before people retire?

How do you know it won't just be on the rich? Now this is a bit simplistic but it is claimed there were 87,000 working in the IRS and, of those, only 10,000 worked in audits and enforcement -- so about 1 in 9. Following those numbers, if we assume there are 35,000 new hires (87,000 - 52,000), than less than 4,000 would be working in audits and enforcement.

And since you object to The NY Times editorial, here is an article that states, "But more than half of the agency’s current employees are eligible for retirement and are expected to leave the agency within the next five years. The IRS will be able to net 20,000 to 30,000 more employees from the new funding," -- even less than what NY Times was claiming (and this is a more recent article).

I see you do know there were new hires after all and not just for those retiring. And how do you know there were no new auditors and how do you know exactly what all the positions were that were hired?

I never stated that there were no new auditors -- merely that there aren't anywhere close to 87,000. Instead, at least based on that article I posted, it would appear the actual number is likely no more than 3,500 auditors. Of course, all of this is moot with Musks cuts to the IRS -- and it appears Trump will ask the Republican Congress for further cuts -- if not getting rid of the IRS altogether. This likely means billions less in revenues collected, as far fewer audits will be done and, likely, far more people will try to cheat on taxes, knowing they are less likely to be caught.

 

[HarleyER]

That represents a tax on wages. Which you wish to discontinue. And replace with a consumption tax. Which might be 10% on food items. So spend $10 on food and the extra you have to pay is $1. Which represents 1% of the income of someone earning $100 a day. And which represents 0.1% of the income of someone earning $1,000 a day.

It's clearly the exact opposite of equitable and fair.

So, no. You don't understand it correctly. And I don't understand why are you arguing for a tax which you clearly do not understand.

It wouldn't be 10% on FOOD items. It would be, say, 10% on EVERYTHING. And it isn't a tax on wages. It is a tax on consumption. If you make $100 and don't buy anything, then you aren't paying any taxes. If you make $100 and you buy $1 of goods, then you pay $0.10.

It is exactly fair and equitable. And, yes, I do understand.

Now, that I've explained my tax system, I'd like you to explain the current tax codes to me since you seem to think that is far more fairer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, you might be right as appropriation bills are daunting to read to say the least. Here is a bit of information from Nebraska's representative.

Fixing the IRS

In August 2022, when President Biden signed into law the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, it included an $80 billion increase in IRS funding.

adriansmith.house.gov

Not a quotation from an appropriations bill.

Given that fact checkers on either side (the New York Times and the Heritage Foundation) both admit to an 86,000 number, then the funding increase ($80M) must be in there somewhere.

The NY Times is a news gathering outfit, the Heritage Foundation is a partisan think tank. THey are not equivalent.

Now what do you think the IRS needs to do with an additional $80M. It certainly isn't about replacing people.

Customer service expansion (call the IRS hotline with a tax question), technology modernization, stiffer enforcement against tax dodgers. You know, the things they said they were going to do with it and why it was needed.

 

[HarleyER]

Not a quotation from an appropriations bill.

The NY Times is a news gathering outfit, the Heritage Foundation is a partisan think tank. THey are not equivalent.

Customer service expansion (call the IRS hotline with a tax question), technology modernization, stiffer enforcement against tax dodgers. You know, the things they said they were going to do with it and why it was needed.

The NY Times is a news gathering outfit, the Heritage Foundation is a partisan think tank.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

New York Times reportedly received millions in funding from U.S. government | The Express Tribune

U.S. government funding to the NYT sparks controversy amid political scrutiny and cuts by the Trump administration.

tribune.com.pk

Without the Democrats, the New York Times won't be able to support itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

New York Times reportedly received millions in funding from U.S. government | The Express Tribune

U.S. government funding to the NYT sparks controversy amid political scrutiny and cuts by the Trump administration.

tribune.com.pk

Without the Democrats, the New York Times won't be able to support itself.

Oh, good grief. It's a newspaper and government subscribed to it as a newspaper.

Also, still no backing to claim of 87000 workers being hired in the appropriations bill.

 

[HarleyER]

Oh, good grief. It's a newspaper and government subscribed to it as a newspaper.

Also, still no backing to claim of 87000 workers being hired in the appropriations bill.

Well, I've looked in part at the appropriation bill. It is rather daunting. There must be an 86,000 number of something since both sides are talking about the same number. Can you say that 87000 hires are NOT in the appropriation bill?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, I've looked in part at the appropriation bill. It is rather daunting. There must be an 86,000 number of something since both sides are talking about the same number. Can you say that 87000 hires are NOT in the appropriation bill?

Oooh, a counter challenge. The 86000 is not a growth in the employee roster size nor the expected number of employees at the end of the expansion. It is (as you noted) the number of new hires needed to *get* to the target by the end date. It is certainly based on a model of retirement and retention including the retention of those new hires. (Some of the 86000 would be expected to leave the IRS before the end of period.) The important number is the number of employees at the end. That might only be found in supplementary documents from the IRS.

 

[SimplyMe]

Oooh, a counter challenge. The 86000 is not a growth in the employee roster size nor the expected number of employees at the end of the expansion. It is (as you noted) the number of new hires needed to *get* to the target by the end date. It is certainly based on a model of retirement and retention including the retention of those new hires. (Some of the 86000 would be expected to leave the IRS before the end of period.) The important number is the number of employees at the end. That might only be found in supplementary documents from the IRS.

It is also worth noting that the discussion is moot. We know any "provisional" employees at the IRS were fired -- so this includes anyone fired under this bill and those that were hired to replace IRS workers that retired. At this point there are fewer IRS workers than when this bill was passed -- to the point that the IRS is closing some of there customer service locations that help the average taxpayer.

 

[HarleyER]

Oooh, a counter challenge. The 86000 is not a growth in the employee roster size nor the expected number of employees at the end of the expansion. It is (as you noted) the number of new hires needed to *get* to the target by the end date. It is certainly based on a model of retirement and retention including the retention of those new hires. (Some of the 86000 would be expected to leave the IRS before the end of period.) The important number is the number of employees at the end. That might only be found in supplementary documents from the IRS.

As I've mentioned, it has nothing to do with retirements. It is the number of personnel slots. You don't ask for new funding for retirment.

Now what exactly those slots represent I don't know since you appartently don't have the appropriation bill at your finger tips. However, Pam Bondi is going to use them to hire new agents for immigration control.

Somehow that seems like karma, if I believed in karma.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I've mentioned, it has nothing to do with retirements. It is the number of personnel slots. You don't ask for new funding for retirment.

Now what exactly those slots represent I don't know since you appartently don't have the appropriation bill at your finger tips. However, Pam Bondi is going to use them to hire new agents for immigration control.

Somehow that seems like karma, if I believed in karma.

Show me the citation!

 

[HarleyER]

Show me the citation!

You apparently never did an agency budget. Every Department or Agency has so many personnel slots associated to it to fulfil the mission. They also have so much money allocated to them and their budgets don't often allow them to fulfil the personel slots. Say Department X has 10 slots available for people to hire, but because of their budget, they can only afford to hire 8 people. Two slots remain empty unless OMB takes it away or the Department gets new funding to fill those empty slots. Now let's suppose Department X gets a additional mission from government. Often this comes with additional slots and a budget increase to support those slots.

Here is a case in point from the State Department back in November.

State Dept sees record hiring, but seeks higher budgets through 2030 to fully replenish ranks

The State Department is bringing in a record volume of new hires, but is calling on lawmakers for increased budgets through the end of the decade to fully replenish its ranks.

federalnewsnetwork.com

From the article:

Verma said those funding increases allowed the department to recruit and grow its workforce “in a way that we haven’t done for many years.”​

However, Verma said the department would need to see about an annual 7% increase in its budget through FY 2030, just to get the department back to a baseline level of staffing and “run the department at all cylinders.”​

The State Department under Biden requested a 7% increase in its budget to get to their "baseline" level (unfilled personel slots). They also requested additional funds to increase that baseline for new hires.

This is standard practice not only in government but business.

So when we talk about 86,000 people for the IRS, it is impossible these are all unfilled slots, especially since the IRS currentl;y has only about 86,000 employees. Like the State Department, the Biden Administration was ramping up government hiring.