out on a limb

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,141
6,486
1
Lots of interesting comments about the inflation reduction act.....
I'd like to throw something out there for debate even before the bill passes the house.
Who really believes that everything in this bill will, actually happen as written and passed? I'll go out on a limb and say I don't.
Let's look at some of the provision......
1. The EV subsidies. First of all the car has to cost under $55,000 and have 40% of the battery components from the US...we phase out China by 2024. Right now nobody can meet all the requirements and even the administration says that waivers are likely.
2. No one making less than $400k will pay any higher taxes. Like someone pointed out, we're going to hire 87000 new agents to audit 700 billionaires? Likely we'll never hire the agents. If republicans take over house or senate in 2022 I would expect some form of "none of the funds in this bill can be spent for....." Remember the days of split government and the ever present government shutdowns over spending.
3. We will spend all the money on credits for renewable energy. But the "savings" for utilities and consumers will never come to fruition.
4. Pharmaceutical negotiations for medicare.....will start out at 10 drugs initially, will never get to the number outlined in this bill. There will be modifications made in future bills.
5. deficit reduction....first of all, what is that? If you want to cut $300b from the deficit just don't appropriate it!
6. Taxes on corporations will start out just as stated in the bill. It will never last for the entire 10 years. Future tax laws will modify it.
7. tax on stock buybacks will also go away before the 10 year period. New tax laws will change it.

OK, these are my opinions. I base my cynicism on the fact that few if any laws that have been created in the near term past have actually lived up to all the costs/benefits that those on the right or left espouse.
Look at Obamacare....other tax laws.....sub prime loans....defense bills.....transportation/infrastructure bills, government takeover of student loans (remember how much $$ the government was going to make), and on and on. We don't have a very good record of accomplishing what we say we will accomplish.

Of course, my caveat is that if by chance we hire all the 87000 IRS agents, and we're able to recoup the trillions of dollars that democrats tell us the high earners are evading, we'll be able to lower tax rates for all americans with the highest tax rate somewhere in the 27% range. Yea, like that will happen
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
22,025
25,692
1
Lots of interesting comments about the inflation reduction act.....
I'd like to throw something out there for debate even before the bill passes the house.
Who really believes that everything in this bill will, actually happen as written and passed? I'll go out on a limb and say I don't.
Let's look at some of the provision......
1. The EV subsidies. First of all the car has to cost under $55,000 and have 40% of the battery components from the US...we phase out China by 2024. Right now nobody can meet all the requirements and even the administration says that waivers are likely.
2. No one making less than $400k will pay any higher taxes. Like someone pointed out, we're going to hire 87000 new agents to audit 700 billionaires? Likely we'll never hire the agents. If republicans take over house or senate in 2022 I would expect some form of "none of the funds in this bill can be spent for....." Remember the days of split government and the ever present government shutdowns over spending.
3. We will spend all the money on credits for renewable energy. But the "savings" for utilities and consumers will never come to fruition.
4. Pharmaceutical negotiations for medicare.....will start out at 10 drugs initially, will never get to the number outlined in this bill. There will be modifications made in future bills.
5. deficit reduction....first of all, what is that? If you want to cut $300b from the deficit just don't appropriate it!
6. Taxes on corporations will start out just as stated in the bill. It will never last for the entire 10 years. Future tax laws will modify it.
7. tax on stock buybacks will also go away before the 10 year period. New tax laws will change it.

OK, these are my opinions. I base my cynicism on the fact that few if any laws that have been created in the near term past have actually lived up to all the costs/benefits that those on the right or left espouse.
Look at Obamacare....other tax laws.....sub prime loans....defense bills.....transportation/infrastructure bills, government takeover of student loans (remember how much $$ the government was going to make), and on and on. We don't have a very good record of accomplishing what we say we will accomplish.

Of course, my caveat is that if by chance we hire all the 87000 IRS agents, and we're able to recoup the trillions of dollars that democrats tell us the high earners are evading, we'll be able to lower tax rates for all americans with the highest tax rate somewhere in the 27% range. Yea, like that will happen
I think the first part is likely , your last paragraph is sarcasm of course lol.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,606
21,211
1
Of course, my caveat is that if by chance we hire all the 87000 IRS agents, and we're able to recoup the trillions of dollars that democrats tell us the high earners are evading, we'll be able to lower tax rates for all americans with the highest tax rate somewhere in the 27% range. Yea, like that will happen
I'm not responding to the bulk of your post, because much of it is devoted to speculating on how this legislation will, assuming it is enacted, be amended in the future. I'm not interested in debating with you about that, Nostradamus.

WRT the hiring of a bunch of new IRS agents, I very much like that idea. While I would not make firm projections on how much additional revenue doing this will raise, it is abundantly clear that the Service needs to bring the hammer down - and hard - on these tax scofflaws (many of them uber wealthy) who are evading taxes and breaking the law in the process. Many of them have not filed income tax returns for years! The risk of audit and resulting assessment penalties and tax deficiencies is the greatest risk for most taxpayers. Criminal sanctions are rarely applied. I think THAT has to change, and that the scofflaws have to be punished and a message of deterrence sent to the American public.

We have what is known as a "voluntary tax system" here in the U.S., in that people prepare their own income tax returns and file them on their own, with little or no government oversight. Contrary to PPB's unfounded speculation, I file income tax returns and pay income tax each and every year, and am conservative when it comes to claiming deductions, credits, etc. (I don't want to put my ticket to practice law at risk. ) If I am dutifully filing my income tax returns and paying my income taxes, I damn well believe that other U.S. residents (not just U.S. citizens) should likewise be doing so. I'm confident that a lot of American's (particularly Americans who regularly file income tax returns and pay income taxes) wholeheartedly agree with that.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
44,101
15,483
1
I'm not responding to the bulk of your post, because much of it is devoted to speculating on how this legislation will, assuming it is enacted, be amended in the future. I'm not interested in debating with you about that, Nostradamus.

WRT the hiring of a bunch of new IRS agents, I very much like that idea. While I would not make firm projections on how much additional revenue doing this will raise, it is abundantly clear that the Service needs to bring the hammer down - and hard - on these tax scofflaws (many of them uber wealthy) who are evading taxes and breaking the law in the process. Many of them have not filed income tax returns for years! The risk of audit and resulting assessment penalties and tax deficiencies is the greatest risk for most taxpayers. Criminal sanctions are rarely applied. I think THAT has to change, and that the scofflaws have to be punished and a message of deterrence sent to the American public.

We have what is known as a "voluntary tax system" here in the U.S., in that people prepare their own income tax returns and file them on their own, with little or no government oversight. Contrary to PPB's unfounded speculation, I file income tax returns and pay income tax each and every year, and am conservative when it comes to claiming deductions, credits, etc. (I don't want to put my ticket to practice law at risk. ) If I am dutifully filing my income tax returns and paying my income taxes, I damn well believe that other U.S. residents (not just U.S. citizens) should likewise be doing so. I'm confident that a lot of American's (particularly Americans who regularly file income tax returns and pay income taxes) wholeheartedly agree with that.
I’m amazed at how many of these Wingnuts equate hiring more IRS agents with a tax increase.

That’s only true if you are breaking the law. They are now are lobbying on the side of the tax cheat just to score political points. It’s disgusting.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,183
37,638
1
I’m amazed at how many of these Wingnuts equate hiring more IRS agents with a tax increase.

That’s only true if you are breaking the law. They are now are lobbying on the side of the tax cheat just to score political points. It’s disgusting.
False! But what else is new?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,141
6,486
1
I'm not responding to the bulk of your post, because much of it is devoted to speculating on how this legislation will, assuming it is enacted, be amended in the future. I'm not interested in debating with you about that, Nostradamus.

WRT the hiring of a bunch of new IRS agents, I very much like that idea. While I would not make firm projections on how much additional revenue doing this will raise, it is abundantly clear that the Service needs to bring the hammer down - and hard - on these tax scofflaws (many of them uber wealthy) who are evading taxes and breaking the law in the process. Many of them have not filed income tax returns for years! The risk of audit and resulting assessment penalties and tax deficiencies is the greatest risk for most taxpayers. Criminal sanctions are rarely applied. I think THAT has to change, and that the scofflaws have to be punished and a message of deterrence sent to the American public.

We have what is known as a "voluntary tax system" here in the U.S., in that people prepare their own income tax returns and file them on their own, with little or no government oversight. Contrary to PPB's unfounded speculation, I file income tax returns and pay income tax each and every year, and am conservative when it comes to claiming deductions, credits, etc. (I don't want to put my ticket to practice law at risk. ) If I am dutifully filing my income tax returns and paying my income taxes, I damn well believe that other U.S. residents (not just U.S. citizens) should likewise be doing so. I'm confident that a lot of American's (particularly Americans who regularly file income tax returns and pay income taxes) wholeheartedly agree with that.
nobody, or at least very few people would disagree with your last paragraph..other than being conservative about deductions and/or credits.
No debate on the future of the bill. You're right, impossible to debate about future happenings when the government is involved.
WRT hiring 87,000 new agents....we'll see. You may be right about the uber wealthy not filing tax returns. If that the case - somebody pointed out that there are 724 billionaires in the US - it should be relatively easy for IRS management to appoint one agent to oversee one billionaire to see if they filed a return. Shame on us, if one of them doesn't file.
Insofar as large corporations, which you didn't mention but which the new bill targets, there are multitudes of credits, deferrments, exemptions, deductions etc that, in the case of large corporations, armies of in house and contract accounting firms work on every year. It should go without saying that they go out of their way to "stretch" the intent of tax codes as far as possible to benefit themselves. Are there cheats, I'd bet, yes, and I'm sure you would too. Will 87,000 new agents generate $billion of dollars in new revenue for the government? Past history would indicate that our government officials also "stretch" their expectations of the benefits of their actions.
Anyway, my experience with government is that the expectations of new laws most often doesn't match reality of execution. The Inflation reduction act may be an exception, we'll see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
22,025
25,692
1
nobody, or at least very few people would disagree with your last paragraph..other than being conservative about deductions and/or credits.
No debate on the future of the bill. You're right, impossible to debate about future happenings when the government is involved.
WRT hiring 87,000 new agents....we'll see. You may be right about the uber wealthy not filing tax returns. If that the case - somebody pointed out that there are 724 billionaires in the US - it should be relatively easy for IRS management to appoint one agent to oversee one billionaire to see if they filed a return. Shame on us, if one of them doesn't file.
Insofar as large corporations, which you didn't mention but which the new bill targets, there are multitudes of credits, deferrments, exemptions, deductions etc that, in the case of large corporations, armies of in house and contract accounting firms work on every year. It should go without saying that they go out of their way to "stretch" the intent of tax codes as far as possible to benefit themselves. Are there cheats, I'd bet, yes, and I'm sure you would too. Will 87,000 new agents generate $billion of dollars in new revenue for the government? Past history would indicate that our government officials also "stretch" their expectations of the benefits of their actions.
Anyway, my experience with government is that the expectations of new laws most often doesn't match reality of execution. The Inflation reduction act may be an exception, we'll see.
It won’t be calling a cow won’t make it a bull.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,141
6,486
1
nobody, or at least very few people would disagree with your last paragraph..other than being conservative about deductions and/or credits.
No debate on the future of the bill. You're right, impossible to debate about future happenings when the government is involved.
WRT hiring 87,000 new agents....we'll see. You may be right about the uber wealthy not filing tax returns. If that the case - somebody pointed out that there are 724 billionaires in the US - it should be relatively easy for IRS management to appoint one agent to oversee one billionaire to see if they filed a return. Shame on us, if one of them doesn't file.
Insofar as large corporations, which you didn't mention but which the new bill targets, there are multitudes of credits, deferrments, exemptions, deductions etc that, in the case of large corporations, armies of in house and contract accounting firms work on every year. It should go without saying that they go out of their way to "stretch" the intent of tax codes as far as possible to benefit themselves. Are there cheats, I'd bet, yes, and I'm sure you would too. Will 87,000 new agents generate $billion of dollars in new revenue for the government? Past history would indicate that our government officials also "stretch" their expectations of the benefits of their actions.
Anyway, my experience with government is that the expectations of new laws most often doesn't match reality of execution. The Inflation reduction act may be an exception, we'll see.
As an adendum....
I just read where one of the white house officials would not commit to the statement "those earning under $400,000 would not be subject to expanded audits"
Not surprisingly, democratic senators who voted "aye" on the bill have stated directly that no one earning under $400000 would be impacted".
Seems as if there is some divergence in what the impact will be on the American people...and the bill hasn't even been passed yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,141
6,486
1
As an adendum....
I just read where one of the white house officials would not commit to the statement "those earning under $400,000 would not be subject to expanded audits"
Not surprisingly, democratic senators who voted "aye" on the bill have stated directly that no one earning under $400000 would be impacted".
Seems as if there is some divergence in what the impact will be on the American people...and the bill hasn't even been passed yet.
One more divergence....irs head testified to Congress that the addition of irs agents will not increase audits of taxpayers making more than $400,000 A year. White house rep said differently
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Latest posts