IRS To FIRE 45,000 Staff, Trump FULFILLING
Promise To Shrink Federal Government

At what cost though? I worry that all this will do is make it easier to engage in tax fraud. Some of these people are going to be involved with tax investigations, there is no way these are all DEI department staff

At what cost though? I worry that all this will do is make it easier to engage in tax fraud. Some of these people are going to be involved with tax investigations, there is no way these are all DEI department staff

Do you have evidence that the firing was supposed to be all DEI hires?

Do you have evidence that the firing was supposed to be all DEI hires?

No, and not the point.

No, and not the point.

So you state an opinion of "there is no way this is all DEI staff", which I never heard of this.  Which is why I asked about it.

You could have just said "No".  Why choose to also enter "and not the point"? 

So you state an opinion of "there is no way this is all DEI staff", which I never heard of this.  Which is why I asked about it.

You could have just said "No".  Why choose to also enter "and not the point"?

DEI departments are being cut across the country. I think that is a good thing. My point is that if you cut this many employees you risk hampering operations, not just cutting wasteful spending on things (like DEI departments)

DEI departments are being cut across the country. I think that is a good thing. My point is that if you cut this many employees you risk hampering operations, not just cutting wasteful spending on things (like DEI departments)

So how many cuts does your opinion feel that it's OK?

I think it's impossible or will take too long to do an audit of every employee to see if they're needed.  So cuts across the board is a better idea and build from there if you need more people. WHich is what they've been doing. 120 nuke employees were cut, only for them to bring back 100 of them or so.  Same with the recent CDC, they offered to bring back about 200 employees.

At what cost though? I worry that all this will do is make it easier to engage in tax fraud. Some of these people are going to be involved with tax investigations, there is no way these are all DEI department staff

The average employee salary for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2023 was $75,665.
This is 5.5 percent higher than the national average for government employees but 1.9 percent
lower than other federal agencies. There are 138,459 employee records for Internal Revenue
Service (IRS).

https://openpayrolls.com/federal/internal-revenue-service

45,000 employees x $75K average salary = $3,375,000,000

During fiscal year 2024, the IRS collected more than $5.1 trillion in tax revenue,
collected more than $98 billion in enforcement revenue and distributed $553 billion
in federal tax refunds and other outlays.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-publishes-2024-financial-report-resolves-longstanding-significant-deficiency

The biggest problem with the tax code is not the number of cheaters, but rather the complexity of the code. 

If we assume a reasonable hourly wage, the 7.9 billion hours Americans spend complying with the tax code costs the economy roughly $413 billion in lost productivity. In addition, the IRS estimates that Americans spend roughly $133 billion annually in out-of-pocket costs to comply with the tax code. This brings the total compliance costs to $546 billion, or nearly 2 percent of GDP.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/irs-tax-compliance-costs/

if the code was simplified, more people would file.  Procrastinations and fear of making a mistake tops the list of reasons people don't file at all.

Legally speaking, it's a misdemeanor to not file a return if required to do so.  But it's a FELONY to knowingly file a false return.  There's a fine line between proving an error was a mistake and not an intentional lie.

So, from a big picture perspective, enforcement -- the thing you're worried won't get done with fewer people -- could be 100% offset by simplifying the code and cutting the $546 billion it costs people and businesses to comply.  And, since only about half the working population pays any taxes at all, the other half are being soaked for that half a trillion being spent on compliance.

https://openpayrolls.com/federal/internal-revenue-service

45,000 employees x $75K average salary = $3,375,000,000
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-publishes-2024-financial-report-resolves-longstanding-significant-deficiency

The biggest problem with the tax code is not the number of cheaters, but rather the complexity of the code.  https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/irs-tax-compliance-costs/

if the code was simplified, more people would file.  Procrastinations and fear of making a mistake tops the list of reasons people don't file at all.

Legally speaking, it's a misdemeanor to not file a return if required to do so.  But it's a FELONY to knowingly file a false return.  There's a fine line between proving an error was a mistake and not an intentional lie.

So, from a big picture perspective, enforcement -- the thing you're worried won't get done with fewer people -- could be 100% offset by simplifying the code and cutting the $546 billion it costs people and businesses to comply.  And, since only about half the working population pays any taxes at all, the other half are being soaked for that half a trillion being spent on compliance.

Thanks for that well researched point.

Tax reform is one of those big promises we always hear and all we get are minor tweaks, it is infuriating. I watched one news piece that explained how taxes in some European countries were the size of a post card where a return here is a minimum 4 pages and so complicated we pay hundreds of dollars for experts to do them for us.

If Trump and republicans approached tax reform the way they have gone about changing other things then that would be his single greatest achievement. Simplify things, make all income the same across the board. Whether you made money from stocks or a job, tax it at the same rate according to the income scale. Make simple deduction options, make tax code that can easily be enforced, etc. I am not holding my breath because too many people in congress have to carve out exemptions for their friends but I can hope.

I've always wondered, why not make paying taxes a standard percentage, regardless of income. 

But then again, if Trump were to reduce/slash tax code, then the left will find a way to complain about it.

I've always wondered, why not make paying taxes a standard percentage, regardless of income. 

But then again, if Trump were to reduce/slash tax code, then the left will find a way to complain about it.

Like a flat tax?
A flat tax would either greatly reduce the amount paid by the rich and thereby greatly reduce the amount of money the government has to spend thereby greatly reducing government services, or it would increase the amount paid on lower ends and tax increases on the majority of Americans is a sure way to lose re-election.

There are flat tax proponents but I have never seen it presented in a way I think could be implemented effectively.

Like a flat tax?
A flat tax would either greatly reduce the amount paid by the rich and thereby greatly reduce the amount of money the government has to spend thereby greatly reducing government services, or it would increase the amount paid on lower ends and tax increases on the majority of Americans is a sure way to lose re-election.

There are flat tax proponents but I have never seen it presented in a way I think could be implemented effectively.

Flat tax %. Not a set dollar amount. A percent is a percent, so whether you make $50K a year or $100,000,000 it would be all relative.  Cut spending so the gov an operate on what they collect.  Like say a 15% tax across the board.  It's just a thought as I've never dived deep into this question.  My rationale is if you make more and have to pay a higher %, then there's a reason to make less. Same like being on welfare.  I know a few who refused a promotion cause they would lose their benefits.

Thanks for that well researched point.

Tax reform is one of those big promises we always hear and all we get are minor tweaks, it is infuriating. I watched one news piece that explained how taxes in some European countries were the size of a post card where a return here is a minimum 4 pages and so complicated we pay hundreds of dollars for experts to do them for us.

If Trump and republicans approached tax reform the way they have gone about changing other things then that would be his single greatest achievement. Simplify things, make all income the same across the board. Whether you made money from stocks or a job, tax it at the same rate according to the income scale. Make simple deduction options, make tax code that can easily be enforced, etc. I am not holding my breath because too many people in congress have to carve out exemptions for their friends but I can hope.

Republican Introduces Plan to Abolish Federal Income Taxes

The bill, if passed, would completely overhaul the U.S. taxation system
and essentially disband the Internal Revenue Service.

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-plan-abolish-federal-income-taxes-irs-reform-2023362

Do some research.  We haven't had an income tax forever in the US.  It was first used in 1861 to pay for the Civil War.  It was quickly rescinded in 1872 after the war ended.  The constitution was amended in 1913 to allow the federal government to tax income directly.  Before that, taxes had to be assessed based on population sizes of the states. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

Tariffs have played different parts in trade policy and the economic history
of the United States. Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from
the 1790s to the eve of World War I until it was surpassed by income taxes.
Since the revenue from the tariff was considered essential and easy to collect
at the major ports, it was agreed the nation should have a tariff for revenue
purposes.[8][9]

The history of income taxation in the United States began in the 19th century
with the imposition of income taxes to fund war efforts. However, the
constitutionality of income taxation was widely held in doubt (see Pollock v.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

Flat tax %. Not a set dollar amount. A percent is a percent, so whether you make $50K a year or $100,000,000 it would be all relative.  Cut spending so the gov an operate on what they collect.  Like say a 15% tax across the board.  It's just a thought as I've never dived deep into this question.  My rationale is if you make more and have to pay a higher %, then there's a reason to make less. Same like being on welfare.  I know a few who refused a promotion cause they would lose their benefits.

Sorry, that is what I meant, a flat percent tax. There are true flat tax people out there but I think the economics simply wouldn't work. 

I think the main objection is that 15% to a person making $24,000 a year is a lot more vital than 15% to a person making $500,000 a year. A flat tax does seem a lot more fair on the surface but I think there is no way we could cut enough from the government to make up for the deficit and there would be hell to pay if we took away all the deductions that the lower income people get. I do think that even the lowest income level should have some tax burden even if very small because then they have a stake in caring.

I don't know why capital gains isn't taxed at the same rate income is though. (Obviously those making big money from capital gains don't want that)

I buy turbotax now and it still takes me at least half a day to do all my taxes.

Sorry, that is what I meant, a flat percent tax. There are true flat tax people out there but I think the economics simply wouldn't work. 

I think the main objection is that 15% to a person making $24,000 a year is a lot more vital than 15% to a person making $500,000 a year. A flat tax does seem a lot more fair on the surface but I think there is no way we could cut enough from the government to make up for the deficit and there would be hell to pay if we took away all the deductions that the lower income people get. I do think that even the lowest income level should have some tax burden even if very small because then they have a stake in caring.

I don't know why capital gains isn't taxed at the same rate income is though. (Obviously those making big money from capital gains don't want that)

I buy turbotax now and it still takes me at least half a day to do all my taxes.

My reasoning with % is it's the more fair option. Example: someone who makes $24K a year gets a $180 speeding ticket vs someone who makes $500K a year.  The richer one could care less about $180.  Now if the fine were to be magic and a % of income, then each would be relative.

Sorry, that is what I meant, a flat percent tax. There are true flat tax people out there but I think the economics simply wouldn't work. 

I think the main objection is that 15% to a person making $24,000 a year is a lot more vital than 15% to a person making $500,000 a year. A flat tax does seem a lot more fair on the surface but I think there is no way we could cut enough from the government to make up for the deficit and there would be hell to pay if we took away all the deductions that the lower income people get. I do think that even the lowest income level should have some tax burden even if very small because then they have a stake in caring.

I don't know why capital gains isn't taxed at the same rate income is though. (Obviously those making big money from capital gains don't want that)

I buy turbotax now and it still takes me at least half a day to do all my taxes.

You should do research into the flat tax proposals.  Most include a threshold which prevents anyone under a certain income level from paying any tax.  Usually it's based on a multiple of the poverty level.  i.e. current poverty level in Hawaii = $17,990.00/year for an individual and $36,980.00 for a household of 4.  Only those earning above the set taxation line would owe income tax.

That destroys the "15% to someone making $X" argument since your example would probably not owe any tax.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-2025.pdf

Another aspect of the flat tax is the standard deduction.  That reduces the amount of income you owe tax on.  So, Kimo making $50K/yr would get, for example, a $25K standard deduction.  He'd only owe tax on the remaining $25K of income assuming he owes anything at all.

Before pontificating on the what-ifs of a flat tax, maybe you need to research the proposals that have been made the last 30 years and decide which parts you like and dislike rather than using your imagination.

I propose no tax on people 70 years and older making less than $10M gross income a year.

My reasoning with % is it's the more fair option. Example: someone who makes $24K a year gets a $180 speeding ticket vs someone who makes $500K a year.  The richer one could care less about $180.  Now if the fine were to be magic and a % of income, then each would be relative.

When it comes to monetary penalties when guilty of violating laws, using a percentage of a person's income would definitely make perpetrators of any crime think twice whether the fines come from overdue books to speeding tickets.

However, specifically income taxes based on a flat percentage of a person's income only makes sense if the majority of people are at least making a living wage to survive to cover that percentage just to live.  For example, let's say the federal and state income tax is a flat 12%.  People making only $30,000/year and pay that flat federal and state 12% would barely survive to cover their monthly rent, food expense, clothes to wear, FICA, health insurance, electricity, gas & car loans, and a cell phone in Hawaii every month.

When it comes to monetary penalties when guilty of violating laws, using a percentage of a person's income would definitely make perpetrators of any crime think twice whether the fines come from overdue books to speeding tickets.

There's a vid in NYC where a guy in a Ferrari or like car is getting a parking ticket. Instead of taking the ticket, he chose to try to flee and ended up running over the cops food.  He was arrested and charged with attacking the officer or something. But since he has connections as he's saudi royalty or something, the charges were dropped.

My reasoning with % is it's the more fair option. Example: someone who makes $24K a year gets a $180 speeding ticket vs someone who makes $500K a year.  The richer one could care less about $180.  Now if the fine were to be magic and a % of income, then each would be relative.

I did see an instagram post claiming some northern european country bases its fine amount on the driver's income. This is a novel approach but we might have to apply it across the board. So the car registration, the driver's license fee, etc. all now becomes a set percentage based on a person's income. Have to noodle that one through for what unintended consequences it might create.

Any changes made will result in people who will try to find a new way to game the system. This is why I don't like the idea to do away with taxes on tips, it is too easy to cheat one's way out of paying taxes.

You should do research into the flat tax proposals.  Most include a threshold which prevents anyone under a certain income level from paying any tax.  Usually it's based on a multiple of the poverty level.  i.e. current poverty level in Hawaii = $17,990.00/year for an individual and $36,980.00 for a household of 4.  Only those earning above the set taxation line would owe income tax.

That destroys the "15% to someone making $X" argument since your example would probably not owe any tax.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-2025.pdf

Another aspect of the flat tax is the standard deduction.  That reduces the amount of income you owe tax on.  So, Kimo making $50K/yr would get, for example, a $25K standard deduction.  He'd only owe tax on the remaining $25K of income assuming he owes anything at all.

Before pontificating on the what-ifs of a flat tax, maybe you need to research the proposals that have been made the last 30 years and decide which parts you like and dislike rather than using your imagination.

I wasn't pontificating, I was having a simple discussion about pros and cons.  So you can take your snark and shove it.