Republicans Reject Funding for IRS Operations

[98cwitr]

The IRS has been underfunded and understaffed for a while, leading to them to focus their attention on lower income taxpayers whose returns are easier to audit, leaving higher-income individuals with more complicated returns to exploit their more opaque tax avoidance strategies. The result has been a significant loss of revenue due to under enforcement.

Biden and Democrats proposed beefing up the IRS' enforcement operations as a way to pay for this new bipartisan infrastructure bill. Republicans rejected that plan.

Senate Infrastructure Bill Drops IRS Funding, Raising Pressure for New Revenue

Good. I don't want the IRS harassing anyone.

 

[cow451]

I really don't understand the opposition to properly funding the IRS to ensure tax cheats are caught.

You don't? Think about who has the most to gain from less enforcement.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Good. I don't want the IRS harassing anyone.

The IRS doesn't harass anyone other than people who brazenly break the law. They are doing what God put them in place to do as part of the government. The reality about the IRS is that they are very easy to work with for those who are not egregious law-breakers.

 

[98cwitr]

The IRS doesn't harass anyone other than people who brazenly break the law. They are doing what God put them in place to do as part of the government. The reality about the IRS is that they are very easy to work with for those who are not egregious law-breakers.

Will you say the same thing about ICE agents?

 

[cow451]

The IRS doesn't harass anyone other than people who brazenly break the law. They are doing what God put them in place to do as part of the government. The reality about the IRS is that they are very easy to work with for those who are not egregious law-breakers.

I had a tax issue a few years back and had to set up payment arrangements. The IRS people were very professional and easy to work with. Now, the letters they sent were pretty scary, though.

An aside, these so-called "Tax relief services" advertising on the radio are rip-offs. If you are an average person owing back taxes, you can do as well yourself without paying anybody.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Good. I don't want the IRS harassing anyone.

Do you want people cheating on their taxes?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I guess we could call adding ten or fifty trillion dollars to the national debt by an act of Congress to be be "paying for something" except that it isn't!

O, we are suddenly concerned about the National Debt?

Voodoo Economics, and the National Debt Takes off Again

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Will you say the same thing about ICE agents?

ICE agents have legal authority from the government and therefore from God. Unlike the IRS, however, they are very aggressive and brutal. I can't even say they are not easy to work with, because there's no working with them - they just do what they do to people. The IRS is the most lenient agency.

@cow451 's experience is commonplace, and he is right that the groups that offer to help with tax problems are a rip-off because the IRS can work with people for no extra charges and will help people by reducing amounts and setting up generous payment plans.

 

[Albion]

The issue here, however, is something else. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, is pushing for a vote on a bill without the bill having yet been written and the contents known.

Anyone but a knee-jerk partisan would admit that that idea is unthinkable and that the Republicans, therefore, are right not to go along with the scheme.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

The IRS has shown themselves again to be partisan, using their authority to target conservative nonprofits and organizations yet again. Why should the be funded as retribution arm of the democrat party?

 

[Arcangl86]

The issue here, however, is something else. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, is pushing for a vote on a bill without the bill having yet been written and the contents known.

Anyone but a knee-jerk partisan would admit that that idea is unthinkable and that the Republicans, therefore, are right not to go along with the scheme.

He's pushing for a vote to start discussion on a bill which isn't done yet.That's not unusual and not at all the same thing as trying to pass a bill that isn't done yet.

 

[Albion]

He's pushing for a vote to start discussion on a bill which isn't done yet.

No, the idea is to pass the bill in rough (unfinished) form and then get it changed and enacted into law by "reconciliation."

This is not a new routine, so the Republicans are aware of how that would allow amnesty for illegals or huge additional spending or other "wish list" changes to be added later. Meanwhile, all the supporters of the Schumer plan get to talk and talk and talk as though the impasse is exclusively about the funding of the IRS.

 

[wing2000]

The argument, as far as I can make it out, is that the more funding the IRS has, the more likely they are going to be to abuse their authority and harrass hard working taxpayers.

I also love the irony of the party that is screaming that the sky is falling down because of some funding being diverted from the police are perfectly fine underfunding law enforcement agencies they don't agree with.

...yea, but most hard working schmucks like myself pay our taxes. What's the problem?

 

[iluvatar5150]

The issue here, however, is something else. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, is pushing for a vote on a bill without the bill having yet been written and the contents known.

Anyone but a knee-jerk partisan would admit that that idea is unthinkable and that the Republicans, therefore, are right not to go along with the scheme.

No, that isn't "the issue here." That's a separate issue related to the same bill. The issue in my OP is that some Republicans balked at strengthening the IRS' enforcement abilities because they don't like taxes.

Meanwhile, all the supporters of the Schumer plan get to talk and talk and talk as though the impasse is exclusively about the funding of the IRS.

Who here has done that?

 

[Albion]

No, that isn't "the issue here." That's a separate issue related to the same bill.

Well, my post was explaining what the cause of the hold-up actually IS. All sorts of other facts could be thrown into the thread concerning how Congress passes bills and how the House and Senate both do something and all of that, but when it comes down to "Why don't the Republicans want to fund the IRS by passing this thing" it's not primarily about funding the IRS.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, my post was explaining what the cause of the hold-up actually IS. All sorts of other facts could be thrown into the thread concerning how Congress passes bills and how the House and Senate both do something and all of that, but when it comes down to "Why don't the Republicans want to fund the IRS by passing this thing" it's not primarily about funding the IRS.

Who is asking "Why don't the Republicans want to fund the IRS by passing this thing"? Nobody that I'm aware of.

Rather, the question is the other way around: "Why don't the Republicans want to fund this thing by empowering the IRS?" There are two parts to that answer: Part 1 is that some Republicans (e.g. Ted Cruz) pushed back against empowering the IRS. Part 2 appears to be that Republicans are essentially throwing up their hands and abandoning the idea altogether since Dems planning on putting IRS empowerment into their own reconciliation bill anyways.

#1 is clear enough and the subject of my OP.

I don't understand the politics on #2 since it would seem that Republicans would be acquiescing and playing into the stereotype that they're the party of the wealthy.

 

[Albion]

Who is asking "Why don't the Republicans want to fund the IRS by passing this thing"? Nobody that I'm aware of.

I don't know if that reply was meant seriously of it it was intended as satire or sarcasm or something else of the sort.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't know if that reply was meant seriously of it it was intended as satire or sarcasm or something else of the sort.

What was unclear about what I wrote? Based on the reactions it’s gotten, other folks seem to have understood it well enough. Do you not understand what’s going on here? Judging by the way you worded post 35, maybe you don’t.

Senators are working on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. One of the proposed funding methods is increasing tax receipts via greater IRS enforcement (which itself requires funding to execute); some Republicans balked at that method of funding.

This funding argument isn’t the sole holdup of the bill - but nobody that I’m aware of claimed it was. I certainly didn’t make that argument. My OP was about the argument on that single point.

 

[Albion]

What was unclear about what I wrote? Based on the reactions it’s gotten, other folks seem to have understood it well enough.

It was clear enough but hard to imagine being asked seriously. That's because there have been all sorts of people asking the very question you acted as though you'd never heard before.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It was clear enough but hard to imagine being asked seriously. That's because there have been all sorts of people asking the very question you acted as though you'd never heard before.

Who are these people? Where are they asking this question?