Are 1099s really required?

Imagine how much money we could put back in the economy if we went to a simplified tax code. We could reduce the size of the IRS and save the taxpayer a ton of money and corporations could save a ton of money in compliance costs. We have created an entire industry around our 60k page tax code…

4 Likes

That is the intention, and it will get worse.

The US birth rate today is one-half of what it was in the 1950s. The baby boom of that era brought forth the prosperity we enjoyed in the last half of the 20th century. A country that fails to sustain a heathy population will wither and die a slow death. If we depend on immigration alone we will suffer acculturation and lose the melting pot that defines us as Americans.

If we can encourage financial success by giving 86% of a tax break to the top 10% of taxpayers why can’t we give a little break to the middle income folks to encourage a stable American cultural heritage?

But it’s not. And that’s not about to change any time soon.

Where in the legislation does it require that the new 87k employees will only be looking at incomes 400k+? Most with that income have CPA’s and attorneys with much greater experience and tax law knowledge than new IRS employees.

So I will put you down a for a “yes”.

Fine… and, in keeping with your binary-decision world, I’ll put you down as a proponent of giving the rich exclusive tax breaks in the furtherance of a $31T+ national debt:smirk:

Your Youtube video is hosted by a CPA who does tax preparation for a living. Who hires a CPA to do their taxes? … rich people, that’s who. Are you going to believe a guy who makes a living helping the wealthy avoid taxes give you the straight scoop on an increased scrutiny of how he makes a living? Don’t be silly!

The majority of the increase in IRS audits will go to the people in the top income brackets. here’s why:
#!. Because that’s where the money is.
#2. Because the $400K crowd hires people who know how to hide fraud.
#3. Because that’s what history shows us to be true.

When you go fishing for maximum return you try to catch the biggest fish, it’s called Return On Investment and it applies to the IRS as well as anyone subject tp performance evaluation.

Audit Rates by Total Positive Income, Tax Year 2019
IRSAudits

Actually, I don’t worry about what other people make or pay in taxes. That just reeks of envy…

The assertion that the national debt is resulting from a revenue problem? :rofl:

You’ll probably attack the source but it is directly from the Congressional Budget office.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/irs-audits-will-generate-20b-from-those-making-under-400k-under-inflation-reduction-act

Additionally,
“By national measures, those making $400,000 or more in income belong to a rarified group. They represent the top 1.8% of taxpayers, earning about 25% of the nation’s income.”

So the activity of 87k new IRS employees will be dedicated to 25% of the nation’s income. Don’t be silly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/biden-defines-400000-a-year-as-wealthy-how-far-it-goes-in-a-city-.html#:~:text=By%20national%20measures%2C%20those%20making%20%24400%2C000%20or%20more,he%20sought%20to%20raise%20taxes%20on%20the%20wealthy.

It appears to me that the information in your Fox Business link, dated Aug 12 was based the initial information and before the bill was enacted.

On August 10, 2022, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen directed that “any additional resources—including any new personnel or auditors that are hired—shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels.”

After the act was enacted the CBO published it’s financial impact analysis report. It does not mention Sec Yellen’s directive:

Here’s a response from the CBO from a request by two Republican House members:

So we are going to rely on a singular directive from the current Treasury Secretary that could easily be voided by her successor or assigns. Who will enforce an unenforceable directive, unenforceable because its not part of the code? Does the IRS have a good track record for self policing?

Taxpayers whose income is reported to be over $400K pay way over 25% of FIT. The top 5% AGI earners, (starting at $222K) pay around 60% of it. The top 1% pay 25%.

Come’on.billin … your argument has deteriorated to … but what if this?.. but what if that?

The truth is that until things play out there’s enough vagarity in the thing that both political parties can call the other side liars and stiill have a rabid following… :slightly_smiling_face:

One senator offered an amendment that would support the Treasury Secretary’s directive you’ve cited… to no avail.

On August 7, Senator Crapo offered an [amendment] during consideration of the “Inflation Reduction Act” to prevent the IRS from using any of the $80 billion of funding for audits on individuals and small businesses with taxable incomes below $400,000. Senate Democrats rejected the amendment along party lines, 50-50.

Mike Crapo (aka Fulla Crapo) is my senator. My inbox is full of his self-aggrandizing BS. He is a lifetime full-time political sycophant.:

His heroic efforts to save the “middle class” earning as much as $400K/yr are just part of his political/financial shell game. He was just throwing up roadblocks to the Demo’s bill.

I think you need to check those numbers on a more reliable web site.

I pulled it down after I couldn’t verify it. The number was from this site:

Which had this rating, from one source: