• Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    First of all, I really appreciate you breaking down the article and the numbers like that. I can tell you spent time and effort on it, and it really helps put things into perspective.

    Now, I’m going to vehemently disagree with the point you were getting at.

    Weirdly enough, the article does not speak to this group beyond potential profit. No mention of tax evasion, no mention of avoidance, just profit. One must assume it’s much easier to squeeze that ~33.2 million people (10% population) million via audits.

    The only way for the IRS to “profit” is by going after people who should have paid $x in taxes, by law, but instead paid less than $x. By definition, they had to be avoiding paying their legally required share of taxes. Some on purpose, some by accident. The IRS is not going to go to a taxpayer and say “well, according to tax law you owe $23,819.25 for the fiscal year in taxes, but we want to profit so instead we’re going to force you to pay $30,000.” That’s just not how taxes work. These people didn’t pay what they owe.

    I am fine with the top 100% of taxpayers being audited and forced to pay what they owe in taxes.

    Just pay your taxes and it won’t be an issue at all, regardless of where you fall on the income spectrum. It’s a simple concept. Pay your taxes.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Now, I’m going to vehemently disagree with the point you were getting at.

      The only way for the IRS to “profit” is by going after people who should have paid $x in taxes, by law, but instead paid less than $x. By definition, they had to be avoiding paying their legally required share of taxes. Some on purpose, some by accident. The IRS is not going to go to a taxpayer and say “well, according to tax law you owe $23,819.25 for the fiscal year in taxes, but we want to profit so instead we’re going to force you to pay $30,000.” That’s just not how taxes work. These people didn’t pay what they owe.

      If we had a straightforward tax system where it was possible for a mere mortal to know, with confidence, exactly what was due, I would agree. We do not.

      My point was that there was no call-out for “top 10%” not paying taxes, or otherwise evading taxes. There was for 1%/0.1%. The implication is the IRS would be extracting profit from those not intentionally evading taxes, instead those who - by all available indications - are already trying to do their part.

      That should be concerning.

      If that does pan out and isn’t paired with a serious simplification of tax code, we’re going to see a handful of things:

      • Resurgence of the tax preparation industry and direct padding of Intuit’s pockets
      • Immense political blowback, the last thing blue team can afford
      • Further compression of the working class from this additional burden

      But, the article really doesn’t go into that “10%” and I hadn’t found much reference in the study either, so… we’ll see.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Trying to do their part is great, but they’re still required to pay $x and are paying less than $x. Everyone needs to pay their taxes. It’s not a radical concept.

        And I have my doubts that they’re trying to do their part. Small business owners in particular are chock full of tax evaders.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          And again, my point is that the vast majority of people are, as far as they are aware, already paying everything they are required to pay. That, too, isn’t a radical concept.

          I’m interested in where you thing small business owners lie in this spectrum of household income thresholds. Business would imply some form of incorporation - even llc or s-corp - and would be a matter of business taxes, not personal taxes. The only way this could even be relevant is if you think they’re trying to blanked pass-through that income on their own personal return, which would be… ill-advised, to such a degree it is most certainly not in that >=10% income range.

          • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The only way this could even be relevant is if you think they’re trying to blanked pass-through that income on their own personal return

            I see you’ve never known any small business owners.

            my point is that the vast majority of people are, as far as they are aware, already paying everything they are required to pay.

            Again, that’s great and all, but they’re not paying it.

            If I walk into a private building because I didn’t see the “no trespassing” sign, I think it’s fair to not arrest or prosecute me for a simple misunderstanding. But I still have to leave.

            Pay your taxes. That’s all.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I see you’ve never known any small business owners.

              I’ve been one and know a few others.

              Again, that’s great and all, but they’re not paying it.

              If I walk into a private building because I didn’t see the “no trespassing” sign, I think it’s fair to not arrest or prosecute me for a simple misunderstanding. But I still have to leave.

              Pay your taxes. That’s all.

              Frankly, at this point, I can’t tell if you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

              As previously stated: If we had a straightforward tax system where it was possible for a mere mortal to know, with confidence, exactly what was due, I would agree. We do not. This would be a bit like having a “no trespassing” sign not plainly posted and trying to bust someone for it despite their best efforts to respect them. It’s borderline entrapment and will only serve to rile people up.

              I’m not contending that one should not pay the taxes due. I’m contending that one paying the “amount due” to the best of their and their preparer’s knowledge could be subject to minutia raised through an audit despite their good-faith efforts to pay the “amount due” as was presented.

              You seem to be operating under the absolute certainty literally everyone filing taxes is doing their damnedest to evade taxes to the maximum amount possible, which is absurd. The vast majority of us just want to not have the IRS on our asses.

              To summarize, we are paying our taxes. That’s the problem.

              • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                To summarize, we are paying our taxes.

                No, you’re not. You think you owe $10, but you actually owe $12. It’s not your fault, it’s just a misunderstanding of a complicated tax code, but you still owe it. You can’t just not pay it.

                This would be a bit like having a “no trespassing” sign not plainly posted and trying to bust someone for it despite their best efforts to respect them.

                No one is trying to bust anyone. This is just informing them of the property line and asking them to please leave. You’re suggesting people should be allowed to continue trespassing because they thought it was public land. Doesn’t work that way.

                And yes, that sign should be more clearly posted. That’s absolutely true. But it doesn’t change the law.

                If you didn’t pay all your taxes, you have to pay the rest of them, even if it was an accident. No one is talking about penalties or fees, just paying the original owed amount.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  No, you’re not. You think you owe $10, but you actually owe $12. It’s not your fault, it’s just a misunderstanding of a complicated tax code, but you still owe it.

                  Yes, we are. There is no scenario where taxes are not being paid. We are, in fact, going out of our way to pay taxes. It is not effort-free.

                  We “think we owe $10” based on a good-faith effort to fill out the forms, run the tallies, and submit what total shows.

                  You can’t just not pay it.

                  And people are paying, by and large.

                  No one is trying to bust anyone. This is just informing them of the property line and asking them to please leave. You’re suggesting people should be allowed to continue trespassing because they thought it was public land. Doesn’t work that way.

                  To borrow the analogy once more, informing them the property line is acktchually a few yards away from what both the general public, the authorities, and the attourneys all believed it was, discovered through an exhaustive and expensive effort to ensure every single person ever in the jurisdiction isn’t overstepping the property line, resulting from what was an effort to ensure habitual, egregious trespassers were dealt sirh

                  No one is going to be happy with this outcome, and those responsible will be earning much ire.

                  I’m not at all suggesting people should continue trespassing. I’m highlighting exactly what I said: It’s borderline entrapment and will only serve to rile people up.

                  And yes, that sign should be more clearly posted. That’s absolutely true. But it doesn’t change the law.

                  It does, however, greatly impact many lives and, as a downstream impact, the political climate.

                  If you didn’t pay all your taxes, you have to pay the rest of them, even if it was an accident. No one is talking about penalties or fees, just paying the original owed amount.

                  Yeah… and I have a bridge to sell you.

                  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    There is no scenario where taxes are not being paid.

                    The only way for the IRS to recover money is for people to have not paid the taxes they owe. Likely on accident, but still.

                    By definition, taxes were not paid.

                    To borrow the analogy once more, informing them the property line is acktchually a few yards away from what both the general public, the authorities, and the attourneys all believed it was, discovered through an exhaustive and expensive effort to ensure every single person ever in the jurisdiction isn’t overstepping the property line, resulting from what was an effort to ensure habitual, egregious trespassers were dealt sirh

                    And this is a bad thing how? Now we know where the property line is and we have more security/police to remind people to stay off it. Who would be angry at that? The property line didn’t change, it just got clarified.

                    will only serve to rile people up.

                    I’m going to put this bluntly: fuck em. Pay your taxes. The only people mad at this are people who support tax evasion, which is a large amount of people.

                    You’re mad about paying taxes? Fuck you, pay your taxes. It makes my life worse when your greed steals money from our government.