You've seen the memes that have cropped up on this forum, like weed infestations that encroach upon your lawn.
It's all phoney-baloney, stirred up in part by misleading remarks from, among others, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Richard Grenell, who was the Trump administration's Acting Director of National Intelligence.
TIME reporter Eric Cortellessa has the "recepits".
"Kick these memes in the Aspercreme(s)"
quote
The Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate, health care and tax package that passed the Senate on Sunday and is expected to head to Biden’s desk after the House approves it on Friday, includes roughly $78 billion for the IRS to be phased in over 10 years. A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions.
According to a Treasury Department official, the funds would cover a wide range of positions including IT technicians and taxpayer services support staff, as well as experienced auditors who would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders.
“It is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or small businesses,” Natasha Sarin, a counselor for tax policy and implementation at the Treasury Department, tells TIME.
At the same time, 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. “There’s a big wave of attrition that’s coming and a lot of these resources are just about filling those positions,” says Sarin, an economist who has studied tax avoidance extensively and who was tapped by the Biden administration to beef up the IRS’s auditing power.
In all, the IRS might net roughly 20,000 to 30,000 more employees from the new funding, enough to restore the tax-collecting agency’s staff to where it was roughly a decade ago.
Originally posted by rinselberg: In all, the IRS might net roughly 20,000 to 30,000 more employees from the new funding, enough to restore the tax-collecting agency’s staff to where it was roughly a decade ago.
Yeah, because we need to restore the IRS to where it was a decade ago.
Ray Maybe people don't like the name calling and rants that are hard to comprehend. The attacks that sound like a belligerent drunk. The hatred you hold is going to consume you. Have a nice day
Right... The same IRS that for the last 2 years has/had a backlog (probably still does) of tax returns due to their gov employees were working vacationing@home not doing any work what so ever as warehouses became full of paper tax returns "cause of" the plandemic cuckoo. While still getting that sweet teet gov paycheck (even got raises for NOTHING) and Cadillac Obama Care package. Meanwhile the lowly progs were out in trucks hauling goods around to keep the country running @ a bare minimum and I was out keeping the inet up and running for all the teachers and kids not teaching/learning jack but fear others and orange man bad.
Spare us your BS big gov fully automated commie utopia love affair stories from those guiding/pushing/FORCING it. The People's Airwaves abuse brought to you by the mainstream mis-lead-ya media.
Still awaiting your thread from you or rayb explaining how da-rump was a dictator/authoritarian/totalitarian/Ad0lf reborn.
any one with 50% or more native ancestry should get a free pass at our border
why the rump right wants to exclude the native americans is something I do not get at all
they were here way before my ancestors decided to draw lines on maps and my people are founders on both sides
again for all the con's my people built this country out of bears rocks trees and indians when they land on that rock at the beginning we know we need and owe a huge debt to the natives
rest of the world only the best and brightest [no religious nuts ever]
the natives we owe the rest not at all
NOW, I understand why you are always so angry and negative. You gave up all your property to indigenous people and you are now homeless. But you somehow still have internet?
You've seen the memes that have cropped up on this forum, like weed infestations that encroach upon your lawn.
It's all phoney-baloney, stirred up in part by misleading remarks from, among others, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Richard Grenell, who was the Trump administration's Acting Director of National Intelligence.
TIME reporter Eric Cortellessa has the "recepits".
"Kick these memes in the Aspercreme(s)" "Trump Allies Are Attacking Biden For a Plan to Hire 87,000 New IRS Agents That Doesn't Exist" Eric Cortellessa for TIME; August 9, 2022. https://time.com/6204928/ir...nts-factcheck-biden/
Rinselberg, is there an actual number of agents listed in the bill? Or are you the one assuming a number? If no number is stated, how can you say anyone is wrong?
The reporting in the TIME article seems very plausible to me. I certainly haven't read the legislative bill itself, which I guess is going to be passed and sent to the President's desk for signing later today.
Show me a statement from any Republican that strikes me as equally or more plausible than this reporting from TIME.
Cartoon-style memes and Twitter messages with exclamatory references to "87,000 new IRS agents" aren't cutting it for me. "Does not work for me."
I'm still intrigued though by the recent story about the guns and ammunition that the IRS purchased. That was just a few weeks ago.
Who's still talking about that, and what are they saying?
The reporting in the TIME article seems very plausible to me. I certainly haven't read the legislative bill itself,
Rinselberg, you have made VERY definitive posts about the number of agents that will be hired and yet you have no idea how many will be hired. I can definitely say the it is intact you Ronald that is spreading the misinformation. It would be one thing to say that 86,000 new agents seems unrealistic (as an opinion) it is quite another issue to assert as fact that others are spreading misinformation. Just be honest about it and stop spreading misinformation, you don't have a clue how many agents will be hired. BUT, I know this much, there aren't enough " rich people" to keep 40,000 IRS agents busy. They will have the middle class in their sights sooner than later.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Rinselberg, you have made VERY definitive posts about the number of agents that will be hired and yet you have no idea how many will be hired. I can definitely say the it is intact you Ronald that is spreading the misinformation. It would be one thing to say that 86,000 new agents seems unrealistic (as an opinion) it is quite another issue to assert as fact that others are spreading misinformation. Just be honest about it and stop spreading misinformation, you don't have a clue how many agents will be hired. BUT, I know this much, there aren't enough " rich people" to keep 40,000 IRS agents busy. They will have the middle class in their sights sooner than later.
I think I do have a clue about how this pared-down version of Build Back Better will translate into changes at the IRS. The article that I posted. More of a clue than the people who are using "86,000 new IRS agents" as a "sound bite" or "sound byte", or churning out the Internet memes about it.
Am I also mirroring the temperament (overreaching) and language (careless) of certain other Pennock's forum members?
Maybe.
I think the IRS should have effective auditing of tax returns over the entire range of wealth and income, from the top to the bottom. I think it needs to be "plussed up", in order to move it closer to this ideal. What I see, in the article that I posted, makes me think that this new "Build Back Slightly Better" budgetary legislation, is more likely to improve the IRS, and less likely not to improve the IRS.
What makes you think the IRS does NOT have effective auditing? And what makes you think this would be a GOOD thing? Since the bottom 50% of workers do not pay ANY income taxes, it stands to reason any new auditors would be auditing those in middle to upper class incomes. How on earth anyone thinks more audits is a good thing is crazy.
I think I do have a clue about how this pared-down version of Build Back Better will translate into changes at the IRS. The article that I posted. More of a clue than the people who are using "86,000 new IRS agents" as a "sound bite" or "sound byte", or churning out the Internet memes about it.
Am I also mirroring the temperament (overreaching) and language (careless) of certain other Pennock's forum members?
Maybe.
I think the IRS should have effective auditing of tax returns over the entire range of wealth and income, from the top to the bottom. I think it needs to be "plussed up", in order to move it closer to this ideal. What I see, in the article that I posted, makes me think that this new "Build Back Slightly Better" budgetary legislation, is more likely to improve the IRS, and less likely not to improve the IRS.
So, in other words, you don't know. BUT you scold and chide those that LIKE YOURSELF estimate the number.
Originally posted by Hudini: What makes you think the IRS does NOT have effective auditing? And what makes you think this would be a GOOD thing? Since the bottom 50% of workers do not pay ANY income taxes, it stands to reason any new auditors would be auditing those in middle to upper class incomes. How on earth anyone thinks more audits is a good thing is crazy.
The IRS funding that is in the Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law on Friday, is—according to the article that I posted—expected to improve other aspects of the IRS's operations, along with the auditing of tax returns. It's not just about the auditing of tax returns.
The "Inflation Reduction Act", only the name that was given to the legislation. I'm not wanting to get into any discussion about that.
This article is in line with previous articles that I've scrutinized, from sources that I think are more credible than not.
If you've seen the article and don't like it, so be it. If you haven't seen the article, maybe you should. I duplicated part of it when I started this forum topic, but not the entire text.
I have an article. What do others have? Memes?
I wont' be gaslit by memes.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-14-2022).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The reporting in the TIME article seems very plausible to me.
We are not surprised.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I'm still intrigued though by the recent story about the guns and ammunition that the IRS purchased. That was just a few weeks ago.
Are you always late to the party ? Blame it on your news intelligence sources.
How about 300K imported agents to rule and regulate you. Sure, a few deputized enforcement divisions to quell resistance among the deplorables.
' Come out with your hands up, we want you to be safe, stop resisting. ' ' Stop resisting, come out with your hands up, we want you to be safe, stop resisting. ' ' Come out with your hands up, we want you to be safe, stop resisting. ' ' We are here to confiscate your weapons, bring them out to the street, stop resisting. '
Marching to destruction, 2.2 X ( 1 X 10^9 ) casualties. Starting a global war, again, just like the last whizz-bang ruler of the world, a thousand years... blah, blah, blah.
Some of you reading here may be uninformed, or worse, misinformed about what the risk of war would escalate to, should the pretendadent sabotage further the economy into depression, this September.
How about 400 million ? Could you resist conventionally ? Not likely, say the analysts and planners.
Lerner's plans for an American Gestapo. When you hear the IRS sirens arrive in your neighborhood, come out of your house with your weapons unloaded, then place them in the center of the street. Raise your hands above your head, and lock your fingers behind your neck, sit on the curb of the street to wait for processing, have your papers ready. Do not resist, we are here to make you safe, do not resist.
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 08-15-2022).]
The Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate, health care and tax package that passed the Senate on Sunday and is expected to head to Biden’s desk after the House approves it on Friday, includes roughly $78 billion for the IRS to be phased in over 10 years. A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions.
According to a Treasury Department official, the funds would cover a wide range of positions including IT technicians and taxpayer services support staff, as well as experienced auditors who would be largely tasked with cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders.
“It is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or small businesses,” Natasha Sarin, a counselor for tax policy and implementation at the Treasury Department, tells TIME.
At the same time, 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. “There’s a big wave of attrition that’s coming and a lot of these resources are just about filling those positions,” says Sarin, an economist who has studied tax avoidance extensively and who was tapped by the Biden administration to beef up the IRS’s auditing power.
In all, the IRS might net roughly 20,000 to 30,000 more employees from the new funding, enough to restore the tax-collecting agency’s staff to where it was roughly a decade ago.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: So, in other words, you don't know. BUT you scold and chide those that LIKE YOURSELF estimate the number.
The people that are using "83,000 new IRS agents" as a sound bite (or byte) are purposely being deceptive about this newly passed and newly signed Inflation Reduction Act legislation.They're just making political "noise." They are gaslighting the public about this entirely Democratic Party legislation. (I don't think a single Republican voted for it in either the House or Senate.)
The people that are churning out the "*83,000 new IRS agents" cartoon memes for online display are just doing their best to help diminish the national IQ.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-15-2022).]
The people that are using "83,000 new IRS agents" as a sound bite (or byte) are purposely being deceptive about this newly passed and newly signed Inflation Reduction Act legislation.They're just making political "noise." They are gaslighting the public about this entirely Democratic Party legislation. (I don't think a single Republican voted for it in either the House or Senate.)
The people that are churning out the "*83,000 new IRS agents" cartoon memes for online display are just doing their best to help diminish the national IQ.
MTG says 87k and she is a member of Congress. I tend to believe her over your sources. So Rinselberg, exactly how many new agents does the bill list? Members of Congress have made a statement, what is yours and what is the source of information?
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: MTG says 87k and she is a member of Congress. I tend to believe her over your sources. So Rinselberg, exactly how many new agents does the bill list? Members of Congress have made a statement, what is yours and what is the source of information?
I'm satisfied, based on that report from Time (Magazine), and particularly, the text that I duplicated from that article and presented for this forum's attention and review.
Someone else would have to come up with something of that kind and present it here, before I would say different, or say that I have any doubts about where I am on this.
My investigative resources are finite, and small. My investigations are prioritized and limited, of necessity.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2022).]
I'm satisfied, based on that report from Time (Magazine), and particularly, the text that I duplicated from that article and presented for this forum's attention and review.
Someone else would have to come up with something of that kind and present it here, before I would say different, or say that I have any doubts about where I am on this.
My investigative resources are finite, and small. My investigations are prioritized and limited, of necessity.
So .... you don't know? And you could be as wrong and politically biased as your sources?
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: MTG [Marjorie Taylor Greene] says 87k [new IRS agents] and she is a member of Congress. I tend to believe her over your sources. So Rinselberg, exactly how many new agents does the bill list? Members of Congress have made a statement, what is yours and what is the source of information?
Then the punchline
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: So .... you don't know? And you could be as wrong and politically biased as your sources?
So now, Rick is into Standup Comedy?
The text I quoted from that Times article included statements from Natasha Sarin, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. She is quoted in her capacity as a counselor for tax policy and implementation at the Treasury Department, which has oversight over the IRS. https://www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/nsarin
MTG says 87k and she is a member of Congress. I tend to believe her over your sources. So Rinselberg, exactly how many new agents does the bill list? Members of Congress have made a statement, what is yours and what is the source of information?
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: So, you still don't have any proof of what you claim......
Upon scrolling through the actual Congressional legislation, it looks to me like all of the IRS-related verbiage is in one fairly brief section (brief, compared to the entire bill) that begins with the section heading in all capital letters:
quote
PART 3—FUNDING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND IMPROVING TAXPAYER COMPLIANCE
The fact that Kevin McCarthy or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Ted Cruz or any of the other Republicans in Congress have used phrases such as "83,000 new IRS agents" or "87,000 new IRS agents" tells me nothing, unless it's part of some larger statement that translates the language of the legislation into projections of IRS staffing levels for the years starting from current year or 2022, until 2031 (the last year referenced in the bill), and explains how that translation works.
These two online news media articles that I've identified are the closest that I have found to that kind of analysis.
Marjorie Taylor Greene cannot add 2 and 2 to get 4. If she says "83,000 new IRS agents" or "87,000 new IRS agents", that's strong evidence that the Inflation Reduction Act cannot possibly result in that many new IRS agents by 2031 or during any year between now and 2031. I doubt that any of the Republicans who are talking such numbers of new IRS agents have any evidence for it in the language of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Where's their "homework"..?
As I've said, my investigative resources are finite and small, and so my investigations, of necessity, are very prioritized and limited.
I know what I've got on these numbers. I don't know what anyone else has got. Other than sound bytes (or bites) from Republican officeholders and the amusing but otherwise uninformative Internet memes that are forum member Wichita's special project.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2022).]
