• ignirtoq@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    The $80 billion is spread over 10 years, and Republicans have already reduced that by $20 billion. Also, that’s the total increase in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, whereas this $1 billion recovered is only one success story of many. Please don’t make such misleading statements.

    • Coach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      63
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022 without any Republican votes, approved about $80 billion for the IRS over a 10-year period.

      Democrats say the money is meant to help the IRS ramp up its enforcement efforts on high-income taxpayers as well as improve its archaic taxpayer services system.

      From a linked article. I’m not sure how much the “archaic taxpayer services system” costs, but my comment is accurate.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Your comment is technically accurate, but leaves out context and relevant information, which makes it misleading. My comment is accurate as well.

      • czech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Your comment would be accurate if it cost them $80B to recover $1B.

        Your own quote points out:

        $80 billion for the IRS over a 10-year period.

        Which makes your comments misleading, not accurate.

        • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          6 months ago

          So in other words it cost $8b to recover $1b? And this is seen as a good thing?!?! That make as much sense as toilet paper math

            • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              6 months ago

              Obviously the minute $80b was allocated, the IRS should have immediately brought in $340b, that’s how math works, right?? /s

              Seriously though, outside of the direct revenue claimed by this, having a well funded IRS sets a precedent to be honest on taxes. If people know the IRS is understaffed, and hear about billionaires (and former presidents) paying nothing in taxes, why should the average American feel they should be honest and pay their fair share? Only time will tell, but we can look back and see if reported tax payments increased significantly because of IRS funding, outside of money brought in from audits.

          • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You are deliberately oversimplifying this to make a conservative talking point. Stop it. We all know what you’re doing. Take this crap back to /r/conservative. They thrive on overly reduced, flippant one liners that validate their worldview.

        • Coach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          67
          ·
          6 months ago

          If the program costs $80B, then it costs $80B. And it’s taken in…well, lemme check my records…$1B.

          Sorry if my brain can’t do the mental hula hoops it takes to calculate that any other way.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            42
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The IRS cost $16B total to operate in 2023. Federal tax revenue in 2023 was $4.44T.

            This idea that you’re trying to project, that funding the IRS is somehow not worth the cost, is absolutely bonkers.

            • Coach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              44
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s not what the article says. I’m just reading and quoting.

              • pikmeir@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Yes. But as soon as you realize you’ve left out important information or someone else adds important information, it’s important to accept that into your reasoning. It seemed like you were fighting back at them in your replies, and doubling down on your initial claims which you now know weren’t complete. You weren’t wrong with the information you had at the time when you commented, but it made you look stubborn by not being willing to accept new information or learn. Just my two cents as an outsider.

          • czech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Your quote states they get $80b over ten years. How many years has it been? You got this!

          • Nerdrage717@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            To be fair, if it costs 80b in 10 years and has only been implemented for 2 years, then it only cost 16b to recover 1b.

            • Coach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              37
              ·
              6 months ago

              Listen, I’m just reading and quoting. Take it up with the writer.

              • breakingcups@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                6 months ago

                No you’re not, you’re quoting in a misleading way, you are drawing your own (incorrect) conclusion that recovering 1b cost 80b which is patently incorrect even in the bit of the article you quoted and you refuse to engage anyone who is poining out that you’re wrong using good faith arguments, instead saying you’re “just reading and quoting” which is the equivalent of covering your ears and going “LALALA”.