Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if it is true that CBO says 20B comes from those taxpayers (and given your history here who knows) that is still spending 80B to raise 183B, which is still completely different than the barely breaking even you were claiming.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote - the report shows that barely breaking even for at least 5 years and the CBO says at least $20B is from lower income groups, implying it is probably higher. Also people change behavior so unlikely to ever get to that $203B that was theorized. The likely result is that it may never recoup the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
Your opinion that CBO is wrong isn't relevant, clearly you haven't done your own study so you're just injected ddeemo's guesswork as if it was a useful or reliable resource. When your favorite source is yourself your claims about what is fact become just opinion, I'll take CBO over you thanks.
I didn't say the CBO was wrong - where did I say that? You clearly do not understand their projections and how they are done, it is based on the law as written and does not account for people making changes in behavior in response. I actually worked with the CBO and it's members on these types of analysis and have done similar studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
They updated their estimate, and it still sinks your claim that they are barely breaking even, and your BS about them going blind. You obviously have a political motivation here, I can't think of any other reason why someone would so consistently bend the truth, flat out lie, and support said lies by using yourself as a source.
READ the report - they did not finish the estimate until after congress passed the bill so they were going based on incomplete information - the house voted on this bill last November and many changes were done after that. There were several last minute changes - they didn't know the impact when they voted. They are supposed to wait for the score before they vote, they did not for this bill. Also both the CBO and the P-W model show the same data - that the inflation reduction act has little to no impact on inflation.
No I clearly don’t agree with you and I asked you to support your claim. It’s particularly odd you can’t do so. In a basic audit of a w2 employe why on earth would it cost 2-6k? Are you taking about or making up cost of all audits?
I didn’t claim it’s inexpensive. You keep projecting a claim that I made but I haven’t. You are simply a dishonest person at this point because you keep fabricating, or if you don’t like the term, lying. That’s exactly what you are doing
What this translates to is you can’t support your claims, you have no idea of what the average tax payer would face in an audit. Like I said most are standard deduction and w2, ain’t much to go over there but you are pushing a false narrative.
So you now concede it’s not an issue for the vast majority of tax filers?
The majority of Americans aren’t 1099 paid so your entire stance is crippled by your own admission.
Again, I guess you do not READ - these are not W-2 Audits - that was your premise - you are fabricating what I said - it is about 1099 and tax breaks. Most tax filers have 1099 income and take tax breaks - that means the vast majority may be audited because that is what is being looked at - w2 is not the main reason for audits but it can be if there are issues.
The cost of audits is what it costs - do a quick search and it will show what it costs to hire someone to represent you. It is you that keeps denying and claiming fabricated with zero proof.
Also you are showing your lack of knowledge - a 1099 is any income or the like that is not from a W-2 - so if you have a bank account, a savings account, an investment account, a tax refund, retirement income, unemployment income or any other income you get a 1099 - there are 21 types of 1099s - the vast majority of people will get 1099's but even more will use tax breaks.
BTW - I really don't do assignments - it mainly means I really don't care about needing to provide you proof - it is your job to be informed, not mine to do so.
Quote:
Actually the bill doesn’t call for any number of new hires. You are lying, have been lying and refuse to recognize it
Actually the bill specifies what it is paying for - just not the way you are used to - I worked with government budgets for years - this is how they are done - the actual data is in the treasury report, like I said several times - again accusations with no proof.
The rest is just more accusations with zero proof - I am not going to respond because you are not being civil and you seem to not care about actual proof.
Again, I guess you do not READ - these are not W-2 Audits - that was your premise - you are fabricating what I said - it is about 1099 and tax breaks. Most tax filers have 1099 income and take tax breaks - that means the vast majority may be audited because that is what is being looked at - w2 is not the main reason for audits but it can be if there are issues.
Can you provide anything that supports this? Anything?
Quote:
The cost of audits is what it costs - do a quick search and it will show what it costs to hire someone to represent you. It is you that keeps denying and claiming fabricated with zero proof.
You brought it up, you posted estimates so I shouldn’t need to google something to support your posts. You should be able to provide the data easily
Quote:
Also you are showing your lack of knowledge - a 1099 is any income or the like that is not from a W-2 - so if you have a bank account, a savings account, an investment account, a tax refund, retirement income, unemployment income or any other income you get a 1099 - there are 21 types of 1099s - the vast majority of people will get 1099's but even more will use tax breaks.
I’m well aware of what 1099s are and what egg cover, no where did I show a lack of knowledge. You are grasping at straws here
Quote:
BTW - I really don't do assignments - it mainly means I really don't care about needing to provide you proof - it is your job to be informed, not mine to do so.
What this means is you just spew bull**** and can’t support what you’ve said
Quote:
Actually the bill specifies what it is paying for - just not the way you are used to - I worked with government budgets for years - this is how they are done - the actual data is in the treasury report, like I said several times - again accusations with no proof.
So post the link to the verbiage in the bill that says they are hiring 87k employees. You can’t because it’s not in the bill. It’s not accusations without proof, you flat out lied
Quote:
The rest is just more accusations with zero proof - I am not going to respond because you are not being civil and you seem to not care about actual proof.
I don’t care to show proof of what? Your bs? I showed proof of that. You spoke about the bill as though it was the treasury report from last year. If you were going to reference the treasury report you should have in good faith understood the hiring estimates and the replacement need so it was never 80k + 87k. You are simply dishonest, there’s no way around that
Again, I guess you do not READ - these are not W-2 Audits - that was your premise - you are fabricating what I said - it is about 1099 and tax breaks. Most tax filers have 1099 income and take tax breaks - that means the vast majority may be audited because that is what is being looked at - w2 is not the main reason for audits but it can be if there are issues.
The cost of audits is what it costs - do a quick search and it will show what it costs to hire someone to represent you. It is you that keeps denying and claiming fabricated with zero proof.
Also you are showing your lack of knowledge - a 1099 is any income or the like that is not from a W-2 - so if you have a bank account, a savings account, an investment account, a tax refund, retirement income, unemployment income or any other income you get a 1099 - there are 21 types of 1099s - the vast majority of people will get 1099's but even more will use tax breaks.
BTW - I really don't do assignments - it mainly means I really don't care about needing to provide you proof - it is your job to be informed, not mine to do so.
Actually the bill specifies what it is paying for - just not the way you are used to - I worked with government budgets for years - this is how they are done - the actual data is in the treasury report, like I said several times - again accusations with no proof.
The rest is just more accusations with zero proof - I am not going to respond because you are not being civil and you seem to not care about actual proof.
Most taxpayers are wage earner and get w-2s. My wife and I get 1099s because we get SS and pensions. We don't get any tax breaks. Neither of us has ever made enough money.
Most taxpayers are wage earner and get w-2s. My wife and I get 1099s because we get SS and pensions. We don't get any tax breaks. Neither of us has ever made enough money.
And your example is representative of the overwhelming majority of tax payers. So desi pure ddeeemo’s fear mongering he/she admits it doesn’t apply to the vast majority of taxpayers like yourself
And your example is representative of the overwhelming majority of tax payers. So desi pure ddeeemo’s fear mongering he/she admits it doesn’t apply to the vast majority of taxpayers like yourself
I assuming most of the people upset about this are so for political reasons.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote - the report shows that barely breaking even for at least 5 years and the CBO says at least $20B is from lower income groups, implying it is probably higher.
I read it. The report says spending 80 billion to gain 203 billion over ten years. You describe that as barely breaking even, which is nonsense. Now you're suddenly focused like a laser on just five years because you're desperate to be right, when we all know you were shoveling BS as fast as your could lift the spade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Also people change behavior so unlikely to ever get to that $203B that was theorized. The likely result is that it may never recoup the costs.
And here is where we have the classic ddeemo so easily sliding from facts into his personal opinions stated as facts. I'll go with what the CBO projects instead of some guy on the internet who picks and chooses what to believe and what to put personal spins on, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
I didn't say the CBO was wrong - where did I say that? You clearly do not understand their projections and how they are done, it is based on the law as written and does not account for people making changes in behavior in response. I actually worked with the CBO and it's members on these types of analysis and have done similar studies.
When you say CBO estimates are wrong, you are saying the CBO is wrong. You made a false claim and are now spinning like a top trying to validate it.
You're taking the topic from enforcement - a matter of strategy, tactics & execution -- into the world of policy i.e., what ought to be taxed.
That is a quagmire, of course. I argue there is no reason to tax businesses in the first place. Just tax people to raise the required dollar amount of tax revenue. Businesses, being untaxed, wouldn't need armies of tax accountants & tax attorneys - they could focus on value-add. Business profits would increase, of course, and ultimately shows up in the balance sheets & income statements of business owners, customers, and employees -- all of whom are people. Just tax the people.
Congress wouldn't like that approach, of course, as tax treatment is one of their "products" that they sell in exchange for "campaign contributions." The LAST thing Congress would want is for campaign contributions to dry up.
There are a few problems with with concept.
First, in the law corporations are viewed as people, so by that thought should be taxed. Rather than leave it at this simplistic statement, I will elaborate a bit. Our system relies on taxing income to every entity. If I earn money, I pay taxes, if I hire a lawn service, they pay taxes, they purchase equipment, that business pays taxes, the manufacturer of that equipment pays taxes, and the employees of all of these companies pay taxes as well.
If we simply pull out corporations and say that they will no longer pay taxes, this means that every human person in the chain will see an increase in tax rates to compensate.
Secondly, we do not tax capital gains in the same way we tax income, and there are a number of loopholes where capital gains do not get taxed at all. So, if we do not tax businesses on income, they just stash the cash in a bank account. Yes, that means that stock prices will go up, as the business is more profitable and/or uses stock buyback to concentrate equity. Either way, you have changed "income" to "equity" and it gets taxed at a lower rate, not at all, or at some time in the distant future. Once again, you have succeeded in reducing tax revenue overall, resulting in the need to increase tax rates on individuals.
Most taxpayers are wage earner and get w-2s. My wife and I get 1099s because we get SS and pensions. We don't get any tax breaks. Neither of us has ever made enough money.
Actually most people get 1099s also even if most income is from a W2. They get 1099s from savings accounts and the like. Everyone gets tax breaks - most get at least the standard deduction and many get child credits and the like. The most audited tax break, according to IRS data, is mainly for the poor and is a big reason over half pay no tax - the earned income tax credit. Those are the things that will likely be audited in greater numbers.
The biggest issue is that audits will impact many more - the majority of current audits are of businesses - with the increase in agents, they will have to do more individual audits. The increase projected is to double the size of the IRS - that will likely impact nearly everyone eventually.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
