FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

You're very welcome. Interesting that it's a product of someone who thinks more like you than me. But hey, reflexively dismissing is your special skill, not mine.

Weak sauce being your forte.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Yes, I asked that question and I gave two options to choose from: 1) Is it fake news that the IRS had a job posting listing the willingness to use deadly force as a qualification? Or 2), is if fake news that the IRS modified their job posting to remove that qualification?

And I responded that this requirement has always existed in some phraseology or another since the IRS first started hiring Special Agents in 1919 and that the manufactured issue may have resulted in the IRS toning down the language of the already-existing requirement, but not the requirement itself, because of the hair-on-fire lies by Wingnut Media and GOP politicians (that you've bought into and propagated).

The IRS Criminal Investigation has had a special agent job announcement on USAJobs since February 2022. That announcement is expected to remain open through December. The job announcement description is the same as the agency’s previous announcements for vacancies for special agents, who are sworn law enforcement officers. It is also the same as job descriptions for other federal law enforcement agencies, said Anny Pachner, spokesperson for IRS Criminal Investigation.

IRS Criminal Investigation is the sixth largest law enforcement agency in the U.S. “Special agents investigate criminal tax violations and other related financial crimes – namely in the money laundering, Bank Secrecy, National Security and National Defense matters,” Pachner said. “In order to carry out their daily duties, which include search warrants and arrests, CI special agents carry firearms.”

Are you really so stupid and impressionable as not to be able to recognize that you're being manipulated by the bad faith mischaracterization that this represents (per Fox News) a new army with which Biden plans to murder middle-class citizens who pay too few taxes? Moreover, the job listing is for 300 such positions nationwide, not for 87,000 as asserted by a GOP Congressman who asked "Why do the 87,000 new IRS auditors need to ‘be willing to use deadly force?”

You've bought into a lie that was spread to discredit recent landmark legislation, spread it and are now too proud/stubborn to admit it. If you were intellectually honest you'd apologize and then examine your own conscience as to why you're so credulous as to buy into such bullshit.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

No, we don't know that yet. All we know is that they currently have about 2100 special agents, which is down from prior years.

We can make an intelligent estimate. The 2100 special agent population is about 2.6% of the IRS's current workforce. If the IRS is adding 87000 new employees, and we assume that 2.6% of the new employees will be special agents, that makes for an additional 2262 special agents (87000 * 0.026). That estimate would more than double the number of special agents, from 2100 to 4362 special agents.

Now, that being said, I will also say that with my job I do work with the IRS - and various other Federal agencies - several times per year, either directly or in partnership with clients. Of all the agencies that I work with, the IRS is probably among the most "customer-friendly". Remember that we're talking about government agencies so that "customer-friendly" bar is set pretty low. Overall, I think the IRS has had some success with a multi-year effort to try to be less onerous.

They still have a long way to go, and like any other government agency, they are prone to excessiveness. It's not hard to find stories about the IRS's history of abuse, and the potential politicization of the IRS by both parties.

As for the "Fake News" narrative, you may notice that I've not commented on that narrative once in this thread, other than posting a link to the Newsweek story about the IRS editing the initial job posting. This notwithstanding efforts by some here to put words in my mouth.

Am I in favor of expanding the IRS? Hell no. The IRS is a remnant of a bygone era, where government foot soldiers were needed to canvas the kingdom and shake down the peasants for their tax payments. In the 21st century, we don't need a giant apparatus to do that. But the geniuses in DC or state capitols can't conceptualize any alternatives to the status quo, nor are they willing to risk blowback (or loss of campaign contributions) from unions if the IRS, or other government agencies, were reconstituted and modernized.

Do I favor the IRS having more agents with firearms? See above. Also, Inspector General reporting suggests the IRS gives special agents guns but doesn't train them on proper use and security of those weapons. Not a happy thought.

As to the specifics of who these new agents might go after, I can only tell you what I've seen. Other government enforcement agencies (i.e., the Department of Labor) used to primarily target larger businesses, largely because they had the biggest pockets, and required fewer resources to extract proportionately larger fines.

However, once those departments received additional funding, they increasingly pursued cases against smaller businesses as an increasing proportion of their total caseload. The rationale was simple: more targets, less sophisticated ability to defend themselves, higher likelihood to pay the fine versus dispute the case for an extended period of time, and ultimately less costly for the agency to prosecute the case.

That's my concern about where the IRS might decide to go with their expanded agency: toward the middle class. Sure, the top 1% control most of the wealth (when counting both liquid and non-liquid assets), but it's not that easy to collect from these folks and they're able to execute all available strategies for tax avoidance/tax reduction. Middle class: less wealth, but it's easier to get at and less costly to collect.

Are IRS agents going to be walking around shooting folks with all their new special agents? I doubt it. And based on the Inspector General report, it would seem more likely that they'd end up shooting each other or themselves.

I applaud a reasonable and informative post, that is largely successful in making its points. Though I'm not at all sure I agree that the human element should be eliminated in tax enforcement, that's basically a technical question that reasonable people can agree to disagree on. I think you have estimated a reasonable ceiling on the number of armed Special Agents that may be added over the next 10 years under this program. And I do appreciate your agreement that the scare mongering about 87,000 gun-toting Special Agents, shooting down citizens left and right, has no truth behind it.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Poor Whell. I think he finally understands that his Dear Leader might have told a fib or two, lol.

Originally Posted by whell

You consistently demonstrate how little you do understand about me. lol!

By extension of that whell doesn't understand that his Dear Leader might have told a fib or two?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You've bought into a lie that was spread to discredit recent landmark legislation, spread it and are now too proud/stubborn to admit it. If you were intellectually honest you'd apologize and then examine your own conscience as to why you're so credulous as to buy into such bullshit.

There you go again...

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

There you go again...

You Trumpkins are simply immune to facts and logic and incapable of admitting (or even recognizing) that you have been conned by a pathological liar and career criminal.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

No, we don't know that yet. All we know is that they currently have about 2100 special agents, which is down from prior years.

We can make an intelligent estimate. The 2100 special agent population is about 2.6% of the IRS's current workforce. If the IRS is adding 87000 new employees, and we assume that 2.6% of the new employees will be special agents, that makes for an additional 2262 special agents (87000 * 0.026). That estimate would more than double the number of special agents, from 2100 to 4362 special agents.

Now, that being said, I will also say that with my job I do work with the IRS - and various other Federal agencies - several times per year, either directly or in partnership with clients. Of all the agencies that I work with, the IRS is probably among the most "customer-friendly". Remember that we're talking about government agencies so that "customer-friendly" bar is set pretty low. Overall, I think the IRS has had some success with a multi-year effort to try to be less onerous.

They still have a long way to go, and like any other government agency, they are prone to excessiveness. It's not hard to find stories about the IRS's history of abuse, and the potential politicization of the IRS by both parties.

As for the "Fake News" narrative, you may notice that I've not commented on that narrative once in this thread, other than posting a link to the Newsweek story about the IRS editing the initial job posting. This notwithstanding efforts by some here to put words in my mouth.

Am I in favor of expanding the IRS? Hell no. The IRS is a remnant of a bygone era, where government foot soldiers were needed to canvas the kingdom and shake down the peasants for their tax payments. In the 21st century, we don't need a giant apparatus to do that. But the geniuses in DC or state capitols can't conceptualize any alternatives to the status quo, nor are they willing to risk blowback (or loss of campaign contributions) from unions if the IRS, or other government agencies, were reconstituted and modernized.

Do I favor the IRS having more agents with firearms? See above. Also, Inspector General reporting suggests the IRS gives special agents guns but doesn't train them on proper use and security of those weapons. Not a happy thought.

As to the specifics of who these new agents might go after, I can only tell you what I've seen. Other government enforcement agencies (i.e., the Department of Labor) used to primarily target larger businesses, largely because they had the biggest pockets, and required fewer resources to extract proportionately larger fines.

However, once those departments received additional funding, they increasingly pursued cases against smaller businesses as an increasing proportion of their total caseload. The rationale was simple: more targets, less sophisticated ability to defend themselves, higher likelihood to pay the fine versus dispute the case for an extended period of time, and ultimately less costly for the agency to prosecute the case.

That's my concern about where the IRS might decide to go with their expanded agency: toward the middle class. Sure, the top 1% control most of the wealth (when counting both liquid and non-liquid assets), but it's not that easy to collect from these folks and they're able to execute all available strategies for tax avoidance/tax reduction. Middle class: less wealth, but it's easier to get at and less costly to collect.

Are IRS agents going to be walking around shooting folks with all their new special agents? I doubt it. And based on the Inspector General report, it would seem more likely that they'd end up shooting each other or themselves.

Excellent post!

Could you kindly describe the major features of the modernization you would like to occur.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You Trumpkins are simply immune to facts and logic and incapable of admitting (or even recognizing) that you have been conned by a pathological liar and career criminal.

Danger! Straw man construction zone!

[whell]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Excellent post!

Could you kindly describe the major features of the modernization you would like to occur.

Three things off the top of my head:

1) Accelerate efforts to retire/modernize legacy IT systems, particularly those that are now as old or older than some folks on this forum.

2) Depoliticize the tax code. One of the primary drivers of building efficient systems - whether human systems to technological systems - is to reduce complexity. The tax code changes with political tides and has become a method of driving social change and/or incentivizing (positive or negative incentives) personal and corporate behavior.

A tax billing and collection system should be about one thing: tax billing and collections. Decades of efforts to make it something it was never intended to be only hinder the IRS's mission, make creating efficiencies in the system extremely difficult, make life harder for IRS employees, and hinder efforts to modernize systems.

The other way to say this: I should be able to wake up on January 1 each year, and (based on my income) have a reasonably good idea of what my tax bill for that year will be. Most Americans (including business owners) wake up on January 1 and sometimes don't know what their tax bill for the prior year will look like. We've gotten so used to living like that, we fail to recognize just how absurd it really is.

3) Once one and two have been accomplished, the IRS gets much less expensive and more efficient to operate. The size and scope of the organization can be reduced. Simplification of the tax system could make projecting income and expenses for individuals and corporations MUCH easier, and as a bonus, reduces the frequency of tax avoidance schemes that require enforcement activity. It also seems likely that a predictable tax could have the effect of increasing economic activity (which increases tax revenue).

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Three things off the top of my head:

1) Accelerate efforts to retire/modernize legacy IT systems, particularly those that are now as old or older than some folks on this forum.

2) Depoliticize the tax code. One of the primary drivers of building efficient systems - whether human systems to technological systems - is to reduce complexity. The tax code changes with political tides and has become a method of driving social change and/or incentivizing (positive or negative incentives) personal and corporate behavior.

A tax billing and collection system should be about one thing: tax billing and collections. Decades of efforts to make it something it was never intended to be only hinder the IRS's mission, make creating efficiencies in the system extremely difficult, make life harder for IRS employees, and hinder efforts to modernize systems.

The other way to say this: I should be able to wake up on January 1 each year, and (based on my income) have a reasonably good idea of what my tax bill for that year will be. Most Americans (including business owners) wake up on January 1 and sometimes don't know what their tax bill for the prior year will look like. We've gotten so used to living like that, we fail to recognize just how absurd it really is.

3) Once one and two have been accomplished, the IRS gets much less expensive and more efficient to operate. The size and scope of the organization can be reduced. Simplification of the tax system could make projecting income and expenses for individuals and corporations MUCH easier, and as a bonus, reduces the frequency of tax avoidance schemes that require enforcement activity. It also seems likely that a predictable tax could have the effect of increasing economic activity (which increases tax revenue).

These are all good ideas that have exactly zero chance of passing in Congress. Both parties love to use the tax code to incentivize/deincentivize behavior and to reward/punish their supporters/opponents. For that matter, big business and the wealthy don't want these changes either as they have developed finely-honed tax avoidance practices that result in no/minimal taxes for them (e.g., Trump claims to be worth $10 billion yet paid only $750 per year in income taxes for many years).