So, Admit It, You Want 87,000 More IRS Agents

[easy rider]

OK.

First, any job announcement open right now has nothing to do with the 87,000 new positions. That legislation hasn't passed yet.

Second, the only 1811 series (Special Agents, the only people who carry badges and guns) jobs available at the IRS right now are here: https://www.usajobs.gov/job/634575800

Third, that announcement came out in February and covers the entirety of 2022.

Fourth, that announcement is for 300 positions, not 87,000.

Fifth, recruiting 300 new SAs a year is just...well...normal. They have people who resign or retire or transfer to other agencies. They fire some. There is a constant need for about that many just to keep staffing level.

I am at a loss as to why anybody is getting their knickers in a twist over any of this.

Doesn't matter if it's started yet or later on. The government agencies under the Biden administration (and even before) have become political arms of the democrats. Never in my life have I seen this so openly partisan. Expanding any of these agencies to a greater extent doesn't bode well for the general public.

 

[benenglish]

The government agencies under the Biden administration (and even before) have become political arms of the democrats. Never in my life have I seen this so openly partisan. Expanding any of these agencies to a greater extent doesn't bode well for the general public.

OK. Finally, we have common ground.

It grieves my soul to see agencies that once had a stellar reputation for integrity corrupted by evil, political machinations from outside the agency. Politics inside agencies has always been a problem but when the marching orders come from outside, that means the agencies aren't just fighting amongst themselves about how to best do their jobs, they're being directed away from doing their jobs at all and pointed toward shit that invariably turns out to be downright evil.

The corruption of the IRS is definitely a problem. Between Nixon and most of the time Clinton was in office, it wasn't. But now it is.

I could go into the reasons (there are basically two) but that would be a long post that no one would want to read.

Suffice it to say that I share your principled stand against expanding any agency that has shown signs of compromise. These days, that definitely applies to the IRS.

Pretty much the only points I've been trying to make today, though, are that even with agency integrity compromised, the practical use of the IRS as a weapon is pretty difficult. The agency is very unwieldy and, no matter who is trying to misuse it, it won't, in practice, be the boogeyman everyone seems to fear. It especially won't be an effective weapon while it's trying to grow so radically in such a short period. The agency shrank by about 30% over about 25 years and now they want to more than double the size of the place in 9 years? Good luck with that; it's a ridiculous goal. That whole process will produce huge wastes of resources that will render the agency much less effective at its core duties for years, even if the budget doesn't get cut as soon as the Rs get back in power.

That's not to say it can't do some really bad shit...but every agency has that potential.

 

[paknheat]

87000 agents on plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[easy rider]

OK. Finally, we have common ground.

It grieves my soul to see agencies that once had a stellar reputation for integrity corrupted by evil, political machinations from outside the agency. Politics inside agencies has always been a problem but when the marching orders come from outside, that means the agencies aren't just fighting amongst themselves about how to best do their jobs, they're being directed away from doing their jobs at all and pointed toward shit that invariably turns out to be downright evil.

The corruption of the IRS is definitely a problem. Between Nixon and most of the time Clinton was in office, it wasn't. But now it is.

I could go into the reasons (there are basically two) but that would be a long post that no one would want to read.

Suffice it to say that I share your principled stand against expanding any agency that has shown signs of compromise. These days, that definitely applies to the IRS.

Pretty much the only points I've been trying to make today, though, are that even with agency integrity compromised, the practical use of the IRS as a weapon is pretty difficult. The agency is very unwieldy and, no matter who is trying to misuse it, it won't, in practice, be the boogeyman everyone seems to fear. It especially won't be an effective weapon while it's trying to grow so radically in such a short period. The agency shrank by about 30% over about 25 years and now they want to more than double the size of the place in 9 years? Good luck with that; it's a ridiculous goal. That whole process will produce huge wastes of resources that will render the agency much less effective at its core duties for years, even if the budget doesn't get cut as soon as the Rs get back in power.

That's not to say it can't do some really bad shit...but every agency has that potential.

I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors in Washington, what little trust I had, is long since gone. 'By the People, for the People' is just words on paper anymore.

 

[benenglish]

I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors in Washington

Having written some small parts of the United States Code, I can assure you that you don't want to experience that sausage getting made. It literally made me vomit, occasionally, from the stress of dealing with two-faced assholes who didn't give a damn about the just enforcement of the law.

I'm long since retired. Those ulcers have healed. And I have no desire to ever go there again.

The people who thrive in that environment are, well, you just want to shower for a couple of hours after taking a meeting with them.

 

[TheDan]

If you're pointing out something that seems contradictory to you, please be clear and I'll try to do the same.

I was just amused that you said we've survived a strong IRS before, yet you consider the agency twisted and a lost cause.

Don't feel you have to defend yourself as I was just poking fun, but I always enjoy reading your opinions, digressions, and anecdotes so fire away

 

[TheDan]

I am at a loss as to why anybody is getting their knickers in a twist over any of this.

Even assuming no impropriety or abuse of power, it's still a step in the wrong direction. Zapp Branniganing tax dodgers is a huge waste of manpower.

Things should be simplified, and then automated. The IRS could be run by an IT team, a handful of AI automation developers, and like 11 people to review the exceptions. They could even automate attaching liens to the property of tax delinquents; no agents needed to risk their lives.

Lastly taxation is theft, and revenuers are hog feed.

 

[easy rider]

Having written some small parts of the United States Code, I can assure you that you don't want to experience that sausage getting made. It literally made me vomit, occasionally, from the stress of dealing with two-faced assholes who didn't give a damn about the just enforcement of the law.

I'm long since retired. Those ulcers have healed. And I have no desire to ever go there again.

The people who thrive in that environment are, well, you just want to shower for a couple of hours after taking a meeting with them.

While I was only a Navy civilian, after seeing the direction our military is going, I'm almost ashamed to admit it.

 

[glenbo]

Tweeter shares horrifying personal story for people who think the IRS is fair or "reasonable"

twitchy.com

 

[oldag]

Regardless of B's assertion, the IRS does not need another 87,000 bureaucrats in taxpayer funded lifetime employment who will retire with a nice pension. Is anyone really naive enough to think those 87,000 will all be doing necessary work? A huge percentage will be pure bureaucrats. Think how big their new CRT department will be. And how many diversity trainers will be turned loose.

The only part of government that needs more people is the armed forces. And even there, they need to be adding only combat troops and those who directly support them. Half of the desk jobs need to be eliminated in DOD.

 

[oldag]

OK. Finally, we have common ground.

It grieves my soul to see agencies that once had a stellar reputation for integrity corrupted by evil, political machinations from outside the agency. Politics inside agencies has always been a problem but when the marching orders come from outside, that means the agencies aren't just fighting amongst themselves about how to best do their jobs, they're being directed away from doing their jobs at all and pointed toward shit that invariably turns out to be downright evil.

The corruption of the IRS is definitely a problem. Between Nixon and most of the time Clinton was in office, it wasn't. But now it is.

I could go into the reasons (there are basically two) but that would be a long post that no one would want to read.

Suffice it to say that I share your principled stand against expanding any agency that has shown signs of compromise. These days, that definitely applies to the IRS.

Pretty much the only points I've been trying to make today, though, are that even with agency integrity compromised, the practical use of the IRS as a weapon is pretty difficult. The agency is very unwieldy and, no matter who is trying to misuse it, it won't, in practice, be the boogeyman everyone seems to fear. It especially won't be an effective weapon while it's trying to grow so radically in such a short period. The agency shrank by about 30% over about 25 years and now they want to more than double the size of the place in 9 years? Good luck with that; it's a ridiculous goal. That whole process will produce huge wastes of resources that will render the agency much less effective at its core duties for years, even if the budget doesn't get cut as soon as the Rs get back in power.

That's not to say it can't do some really bad shit...but every agency has that potential.

GOOD GRACIOUS, B. WAKE UP. Do you not recall the Lerner scandal? How much more of a practical use of the IRS as a weapon do you need?

You are smarter than this.

 

[kbaxter60]

Heh.

IRS job posting for Criminal Investigation agent: 'Be willing to use deadly force, if necessary'

The job listing was discovered after Senate Democrats passed a bill last weekend to hire 87,000 more IRS agents.

justthenews.com

 

[Wudidiz]

The IRS is the gun. I am concerned about the intentions of the shooter.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Heh.

IRS job posting for Criminal Investigation agent: 'Be willing to use deadly force, if necessary'

The job listing was discovered after Senate Democrats passed a bill last weekend to hire 87,000 more IRS agents.

justthenews.com

300 vacancies for special agents this year.
If I read it properly.

 

[CaliGunner]

The IRS is the gun. I am concerned about the intentions of the shooter.

Yup this is how I feel.

FBI, IRS, ATF, etc. All of them are a weapon now that "can be" used against the people. The guy holding this weapon is Biden (or whoever is controlling him).

If you aren't worried, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Army 1911]

On Fox news (maybe Waters, Tucker or Ingram) some one said that with the number of existing agents adding 87,000 more would give the IRS more agents than the Border Patrol, Homeland Security and the FBI combined. 57% of all audits are for returns with less than 200k taxable income.

Whom do you think those 87k new agents will be aimed at? By the way the IRS has something like 5 billion rounds of ammo in storage.

 

[oldag]

Speaking of past IRS abuse as a political tool of the Dems:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ir...t-conservative-groups-tea-party-group-founder

 

[gdr_11]

I think the real issue underneath this increase is being overlooked. The huge increase in IRS staff will be leveraged with a supercharged data processing system that will follow up on the change in bank reporting that was implemented several months ago.

Simply put, the super computers will grind through hundreds of thousands of tax returns every hour and then crosswalk them with the bank accounts of the taxpayers. If your return shows income of $150,000 and the bank shows transactions of $200,000 you are going to get audited. If you cannot provide full documentation (loan documents, bill of sale for a vehicle/house/boat, etc.) you will be assessed additional taxes and assumed to be lying about unreported income. This is the biggest problem because it will constitute the largest single invasion of privacy in US history and will impact 95% of the population.

People who deposit cash into their accounts for various reasons will be targeted, audited, investigated and prosecuted.....no if, ands or buts....this is designed to drive fear into the mainstream American in order to make them more subservient to the federal government.

I expect the next step will be for the federal government to target the prepaid credit and debit card industry, which is huge, in order to prevent people from turning their cash into untraceable credit/debit transactions. They will require some kind of up front tax withholding on all cards before they are activated under the guise that these cards are a way for gray economy workers to avoid taxes.

Of course, illegals will be exempted from all of these draconian measures as will those making millions and billions of dollars.

 

[benenglish]

I think the real issue...

There is a great deal of wisdom in this post.

Reconstruction of unreported income based on lifestyle has always been one of the most difficult sort of examinations that the IRS does.

If those are made (theoretically) easy, God help us all. The IRS will not be sophisticated enough to realize that every withdrawal and re-deposit isn't new income. The middle and lower economic class will get chewed up before everyone figures out that income reconstruction is something that cannot be accurately done simply by implementing an algorithm. There's a hell of a lot of human judgement that must be brought to bear to do it right.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if I were starting a small business right now, it would be something that uses cash almost exclusively.

 

[benenglish]

Regardless of B's assertion, the IRS does not need another 87,000 bureaucrats

I have not and do not assert the IRS needs 87,000 more employees. Staffing levels aren't the point of this whole thread. The fact that people are needlessly screaming like their hair is on fire is the point.