
The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes - chadash
http://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-people-are-getting-away-not-paying-their-taxes/577798/
======
humanrebar
> By that time, the Republican narrative had taken hold: The IRS had to be
> “held accountable” for wasting millions on lavish conferences and
> persecuting conservative nonprofits for their political beliefs.

That is very dismissive of some very salient complaints about how groups were
targeted. Read the Wikipedia article. This isn't moonbat pizzagate nonsense.
Among keywords targeted were "open source software", "medical marijuana", and
"Israel".

A Democratic senator said:

> U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said, "We should not only fire the head
> of the IRS, which has occurred, but we've got to go down the line and find
> every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they
> are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy)

~~~
rtpg
Definitely not great behavior. The idea this was purely an anti-conservative
thing when OSS advocacy is on this list is where my eyes glaze over though.
Just on its face there is a lot of evidence in the other direction

>Ryun has stated he believes that Greenhouse Solutions benefited from its name
(although the quick approval might also be due to the fact that Greenhouse
Solutions was already operating as a nonprofit and was already on-file with
the IRS.)

Like “conservative claims bias (but here is the real explanation).” Might as
well place “claims to be innocent “ in the profile of every person in
Shawshank

The insistence of people bringing up this thing as a conservative thing only
when there were liberal groups also being targeted (There could have been a
proper bipartisan effort against this!) is mind-boggling.

~~~
humanrebar
I don't care to rehash the argument, but targeting nonprofits based on their
names is at best arbitrary and uneven. Maybe it was accidental that
conservative groups felt targeted. But given that non-profits aren't in the
business of lawsuits, it's a due process concern when the IRS is arbitrary.

Some sort of heuristic based on random sampling or less political profiling
(location, governing structure, association with known tax evaders) makes more
sense.

~~~
rtpg
Yep, I had never really dug too much into this (partly because I would hear
about it from people I know to act in bad faith), but I agree on the
arbitrariness being a due process concern.

I do feel like "random sampling" would make a lot more sense here. Other
profiling feels like it might end up in the same spot though. Really the ideal
thing is to improve the processes/rules and give enough resources to where
they don't feel the need to have to pull fringe-political-shaped needles out
of haystacks in the hopes that those needles happen to also be non-compliant
shaped.

Incentives are all weird here, and we end up in these messes. And some people
take advantage of that to create a narrative that makes it _even harder_ to
solve the real problem (imagine asking for more resources for compliance after
this "IRS is being used for politics" stuff)

------
theandrewbailey
> "No business would fail to fund a unit that, on average, brought in $7 for
> every dollar spent. Shareholders would rebel and bring lawsuits, or at least
> oust the management or board of directors," Olson wrote in her preface to
> the report. "Yet this is precisely what we are doing with the IRS
> budget."[0]

Sounds like the IRS should be the most funded government agency.

[0] [https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-
deli...](https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/national-taxpayer-advocate-delivers-
annual-report-to-congress-focuses-on-tax-reform-irs-funding-and-identity-
theft)

~~~
anonymouzz
Yeah, especially because tax avoidance is an insanely difficult problem to
fight once it gets big enough. I mean it's impossible to prosecute at once
even 10% of the country for not paying taxes.

Imagine the US going through a Greece episode, which was caused in big part by
tax avoidance. To this day it's perfectly fine in Greece to ask for a ~20%
"cash discount" in almost any shop, which of course means simply not paying
the VAT tax (similar to the US sales tax).

Edit: let me self-correct - this does not seem to be an actual problem in the
US - with this plot:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Government_respo...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Government_response)

~~~
hardtke
The US has a very high tax compliance rate because most of our income is
reported through 3rd parties (w2, 1099, etc.). For income that is not reported
through a 3rd party, we have low compliance rates as well. For income subject
to little or no information reporting, the misreported income is 63% of total
according to the IRS. [https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-
soi/p1415.pdf](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/p1415.pdf)

~~~
sandworm101
>> because most of our income is reported through 3rd parties

For most _people_ and most of _their_ income. I seriously doubt it true that
most income, as in >50% of all income earned by all US entities, is so
reported. Corporate income is massive. Corporations, the wealthy, private
contractors ... their income is not automatically reported. Note too that
"income" includes all income, not just net profits subject to tax.

~~~
barry-cotter
Indeed. It is trivially easy to get people to conspire to evade taxes for the
benefit of other people for similar payment to that they could get working for
clean companies when they could pay massive fines or go to prison for doing
so. Equally it is simple to find these people when any one of them could go to
the government and inform them of your illegal actions when first informed or
as a whistleblower after years doing so.

The difference between the US and Mexico in terms of corruption is not that
the people in the US are pure of heart, it’s that coordinating corrupt and
illegal activities is next to impossible when law enforcement are clean.

~~~
isoskeles
> when law enforcement are clean

What are some differences between law enforcement in the US and Mexico?

~~~
barry-cotter
Fundamentally, that the FBI is run by people who don’t take bribes and who
promote people who find corruption in state or local law enforcement or other
government offices. In Mexico there are states where the chief of police is
owned by the narcos, in the US, a single department being corrupt from top to
bottom is probably the biggest scandal since WWII.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal)

------
RileyJames
I take pride in paying my taxes. It reminds me that our society has a cost,
and we all contribute towards it.

I’d be interested to know how others feel. And how we could inspire more
people to feel pride in contributing rather than make such efforts to avoid
contributing.

~~~
exabrial
I'm against taxes for the simple fact they're non-voluntary. I don't think
there's anything wrong with people that that are willing to pay them, but I
don't think forcefully [meaning, eventually you will be arrested by someone
with a gun] taking another person's money is justifiable by any society.

~~~
mullingitover
This is reasonable. I'd prefer that rather than forcibly collecting taxes,
non-payers could simply be, peacefully, stripped of citizenship and exiled.

~~~
stale2002
Yep, it is totally "non violent" to throw people into the sea, where they can
be "non violently drowned to death".

The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You
cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of a
nation.

If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that
arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It is
not a particularly controversial opinion to have.

But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non
violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the
government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.

~~~
kaibee
> If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that
> arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It
> is not a particularly controversial opinion to have.

If someone is squatting in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it,
you are justified in evicting them.

> The ocean is the only place not claimed by a nation. That's the point. You
> cannot buy land, and have it declared yours, not subject to the authority of
> a nation.

This has been true since basically the dawn of human civilization. Just in
those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.

> But don't pretend like exiling people from land that they own is "non
> violent". Just be honest with yourself and say "yes. I support the
> government's monopoly on violence". It's not hard, nor controversial.

Owning land is a concept that only exists inside of a system of government
with a mechanism to enforce property rights. If they decide they don't want to
be subject to the rules of society, they don't get to have their cake and eat
it too.

~~~
stale2002
> kaibee 1 hour ago | parent | on: The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying
> Their Tax...

> If you support violence, that's fine. Go ahead and say so, and make that
> arguement. Lots of people support the government's monopoly on violence. It
> is not a particularly controversial opinion to have. If someone is squatting
> in your house, benefiting from money you spend on it, you are justified in
> evicting them

This argument is only valid if you believe that the 200 countries in the world
own every single inch of land in the world.

> . Just in those times, you were subject to the authority of invaders.

Yes, and this would be described as violence.

And that's fine. If you believe in the authority of the monopoly on violence
of governments, all you have to do is say so! That's it!

This is merely a descriptive claim I am making. That the act of owning every
plot of land in the world, and preventing other people from owning it, and
then kicking people off of 100% of the land, is violence.

If there was an ever expanding mirror world, where people could up and leave
too, then this would not be violence.

Or in other words, owning 100% of something is violence, but owning 0.00001 %
of something is not.

And all you have to do is say that you support the uncontroversial opinion of
the government monopoly on violence, and we are good to go. Easy!

------
jblow
An IRS budget of $14B means each person in the USA is paying $43 per year to
fund the agency (including children). At the Federal minimum wage, after
taxes, that's about a full working day to pay it off. If you have a non-
working spouse and one child, three working days.

So it seems like a lot to me.

Here's an idea, why don't we simplify our Byzantine tax filing processes so
that the whole thing doesn't cost so much. I know, I know, all that sweet H&R
Block tax lobbyist money is addictive, but it would be better for the country
if congress would put down the pipe.

~~~
linuxlizard
A US military budget of $660,000,000,000 means each person the USA is paying
$2030 to fund the military (including children). At the Federal minimum wage,
after taxes, that's 47 full working days to pay it off.

So that seems like a lot more to me.

~~~
ohithereyou
Luckily, we can focus on more than one thing at a time. We can oppose foreign
interventionist wars and reform the tax code at the same time.

------
danieltillett
The political support for underfunding the IRS comes from the complexity of
the US tax code combined with the extraordinary powers of the IRS. It leaves
the average taxpayer with the feeling that could be audited and even jailed at
any time for non-compliance with some obscure rule.

I am an Australian and I fear the IRS more than the ATO, not because I owe the
IRS anything (I am not a US taxpayer), but because I have US customers. There
is probably some obscure form or reporting requirement I have missed or filled
in incorrectly that could make me the target of some arbitrary action by the
IRS. You can see why foreign financial institutions just won’t have anything
to do with US taxpayers.

------
hkt
All very sad. It is time to bring the wealthiest back to heel. Companies and
individuals cannot be above the law or the states which sustain their lives
and businesses will crumble. Time to take back control.

~~~
president
It is impossible to revert. Rich people own the world and unless they are
willing to sacrifice their wealth/power, there is no other solution other than
revolt/war.

~~~
standerman
Or you can organize and vote. This is still a democracy.

~~~
notdonspaulding
This (the USA, at least) is a constitutional republic. You have representation
and you have constitutional rights. In a democracy, a plurality of the people
can vote to do whatever they want to you. In a constitutional republic, a
supermajority has to change the nature of your rights in order to violate
them.

It's an important distinction.

~~~
Kalium
The USA is a symmetric federalist constitutional republican representative
democracy. This is a form of democracy.

"Democracy" is a family of types of government, of which the absolute
democracy many imagine in one form. A representative democracy is another.

------
smsm42
Maybe if we had simpler tax code instead of byzantine monstrosity that happens
now, when even professionals can't be sure if particular payment is right, and
there's no hope regular citizen can figure it out - we'd not need as much
funding to the IRS as we need now. But that would mean giving up the power to
control people's decisions by messing with taxation - one of the most powerful
levers of control Federal Government can have over the private citizen
(Obamacare individual mandate has been deemed a "tax", because that'd make it
within Fed's constitutional powers) and one of the most powerful levers to
control the economy. Having simple tax code removes that power, and that's why
it would not become simple.

------
didibus
> letting the poor commit too much fraud

> Cutting the IRS’s budget didn’t make sense to him. It was one of the few
> areas of government that had a positive return on investment

> Since the IRS-reform bill in 1998, the agency is prohibited from evaluating
> agents based on how much money they bring in. Instead, they are evaluated on
> how efficiently they open and close audits

I find these pretty interesting. It does feel a little fishy, given the IRS
can actually be a revenue generating center for the government. Which would be
very different if it was costing more then it brought in.

------
RickJWagner
From the same source, for some context:

"Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives", from early on in the scandal

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-t...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/proof-
the-irs-didnt-target-just-conservatives/276536/)

After the evidence was overwhelming and denial was impossible:

"New Documents Show the IRS Targeted 'Progressive' and 'Tea Party' Groups for
Extra Scrutiny"

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/new-
doc...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/new-documents-
show-the-irs-targeted-progressive-and-tea-party-groups-for-extra-
scrutiny/361125/)

------
amaccuish
Seems to me, though I'm not American, that many Americans take issue with the
arduous process of paying tax in America. I suggest you take a look at
Estonia's tax collection system and it's efficiency as a potential model.

------
PHGamer
i guess there should be more enforcement but im not a big fan of an
organization that presidents have used again their enemies. Also beauracies
tend to grow over time and the amount of tax they need (both sides
unfortunately). I would bet california breaks 10% sales tax this decade

------
davidgrenier
There has to be some clever way to privatize this.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
Privatized prisons have worked out so well - I agree it's probably a good idea
here as as well. /s

~~~
zeofig
We just didn't do it cleverly enough, you silly socialist!

------
lvngdfns
The IRS administers and enforces the income tax laws beyond the parameters of
the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President as well as beyond the
parameters laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, the IRS’s own
internal procedures, manuals and literature itself indicate the IRS knowingly
deceives the American public about the scope of its true income tax authority.

In addition, consider this: [https://www.numbersusa.com/news/irs-12-million-
illegal-alien...](https://www.numbersusa.com/news/irs-12-million-illegal-
aliens-committed-identity-theft-fy-2017)

------
mschuster91
Classic "Republican" playbook: instead of killing a govt agency/service
directly, slowly de-fund it over years until it's crippled, then use said
crippled state as "you see, the state just can't provide
healthcare/telecom/infrastructure efficiently, it must be privatized"
justification, then deliver the remainders on a silver platter for the ultra
rich to siphon the profits off.

~~~
vxNsr
Not clear what their plan is in this case though. You can't exactly privatize
gov tax collection at least not in a way that wouldn't result in billions of
dollars for fraud and even more lost revenue.

~~~
magissima
If they cared about losing money to fraud we wouldn't be in this situation to
begin with.

------
exabrial
The IRS has a $12,000,000,000 to spend, and we're worried about a few
millionaires not paying their taxes? I'm much more concerned about the first
part, how on earth did we give that astronomical amount of funding to that
agency and what in the heck are they doing with $12b that couldn't be done
with $12m?

~~~
pchristensen
For easier math, let's assume that 330m Americans file 120m tax returns. So
all in, collection, processing, auditing, technology, customer support (which
is excellent btw), management, compliance, etc would be ~$0.10 per return?
Even at ~$100 that seems pretty well run. Scale costs.

~~~
jlawson
The number is extreme... but it's worth noting that Facebook and Google both
manage more users, often with more complex information, including people
intentionally trying to break and trick their systems - at very low cost.

(I'm not sure if Google/FB spend 0.10 per user, but it sure ain't anywhere
near $100).

I think with a sensibly simplified tax code, and FAANG-level technical
innovation, IRS costs could enter that range.

