6:17 pm, May 24, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 33
       

  • Less IRS workers means less audits for the rich
    Lisa Lisa
    Call me paranoi and cynical but all of the cuts seem to benefit big businesses and the independently wealthy. If you think about it, less inspectors, less IRS workers means that corporations and uber rich whom historically have done bad things get to do bad things because of a lack of oversight of "big govt". Government BECAME big beccause of bad practices from the oil folks, pharmaceuticals, farming which producred ecoli in our food (horse meat anyone?), dumping poison in the water, and yes, the uber rich who think paying their fair share of taxes is for the peasants and not for them. So while I think some of govt can be tightened up, it cant all be less govt, it has to come from revenue too. This is a DREAM for the GOP. They started a long war in Iraw that racked up trillions without any foresight to how it was going to be paid. No more wars if we cant pay cash for it-just like everything else we are being asked to degrade. Pack up the troops-we cant afford wars (aww..poor Haliburton).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Paranoid, No! Misdirected, Perhaps!
    ben
    A good management tool is, in a time of diminished assets, direct effort towards the most profitable activities. The IRS should use their experience and direct remaining efforts towards wealth with a record of bad returns, etc. Of course, this administration is particular in their selection of the wealth -- GM and Facebook paying little, if any, taxes.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The IRS cannot redirect funds!
    Jerry A.
    The terms of the sequester law state that all programs have to be cut in affected agencies.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Absolutely right
    Linda
    Jerry is absolutely right. iRs has to cut taxpayer Service along with Exam, Collections, supplies etc. the on,y good thing, for current employees anyway, is that many of these cuts were implemented early with hiring freezes, supply cuts, etc. so the impact isn't as bad now as for other Agencies that didn't do that.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The Bright Side
    deployed decoy
    Tax rates went up just a tad recently. Not on anyone who will read this, unless they married money. Meanwhile huge corporations (mostly Defense) have gone off shore in the last 10 or 12 years to avoid US income tax. Heck circa 2008, one HUGE American company was sneaking DoD contractors into Germany through France, so the employees could also avoid German federal income tax likewise, I will add the US Army was fully aware of this practice, and looked the other way because it shaved money off the contract. Any American (well besides US Federal folk) that works off shore for most of the year, gets out of American income tax. The Prime vender that owned the US Army in Kuwait until 2010 required all American Expat Employees hold a local Kuwait bank account, so the company could deposit off shore. I will bet my left kidney, not a sole from that (or sub-contractors) ever reported those off shore accounts, ever. I wonder how many CORs and QAs are going to get whacked, say on those random samples of nuclear material or fighter jets. An estimated 47% of the population is dependent on someone else feeding and watering them (or just using the money for drugs and not required to potty test for FREE federal handouts). Those folks do not pay taxes but do live very well. I have deadbeat relatives that have done just about as well as I did over a 37 year federal career, the difference is one of my cousins is third generation pure welfare and social security cheat. The republicans got their cuts they wanted. Never had to do a thing with Sequester, just stand back and watch. Now get all Americans off foreign soil (well Embassies could remain open), give the people exactly what they want, the best. Say FEHB Blue Cross. Let the Govt pay that $16000 in premiums, so my cousin can have the same health care I do. Right now, my cuz gets dental, hearing and eye care. Unheard of in even social Europe, or any health plan I can get. Yes they get great health care in Europe, but they pay 49% income tax when you add up health care that along with a 1% mandatory church tax (you can get out of that if you don’t mind rotting in the ground one day), with everything else is added in. People from Bangladesh and Shi Lanka go to Saudi and Kuwait to work for $120 a month (if they are paid); they almost never see their passports again. I don’t think the Arabs would tolerate fast food fattened American women with an attitude though, so going there to feed the kids wont be an option. Maybe they can go to Mexico and dig through the trash of US top end hotels looking for half eaten chicken bones, just like 35% of the Philippine population does every day. It is going to get worse folks, a lot worse. Just look at the DOW today, see the world keeps playing as if none of this matters. Admitting it would be instant death. This way it will be slow enough for the fools that did this, to get the family safe and hidden.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Never fail to enlighten
    contrarian
    Rich may play shell game of hide the family in one of seven houses, but when the zombie population arises, only underground bunkers will be safe. Stock market gains make no sense to me either, but I suppose the plunge will have to come eventually. If the population wants to spend the country to collapse, why shouldn't the pols oblige them? Why bring troops home? Won't the bad guys come with them?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Stock Markets Fueled By Fed
    ben
    The stock market rise is, most likely, fueled by the trillions pumped into the market by the Fed. Sooner, or later, this will contract or fuel inflation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Furloughing the money-makers
    Reinaldo Luis A.
    Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Federal budget developed and managed in an interactive manner? If the House, being dominated by the Republicans, initiated cuts to IRS could not the Senate, dominated by Democrats wishing to spend more on social programs, negotiate the impact on the IRS? Where was the Administration when the cuts were being made? Where was the President? The sequestration process was not created in a vacuum along with the cuts to specific programs. The Administration had input when it was initially proposed and should have had the initiative to minimize the impact on the IRS.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • IRS Furlough Day
    KMA11212010
    Let's make it April 15th! Still got time to get the notice out for that day as a furlough. Just think of the uproar Congress would get if the IRS shut down on April 15th!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Huh?
    Spunky
    Since when is IRS the "money-maker"? They don't generate the revenue, they collect it! They are not the salesmen, they are the collectors! If, in fact, the IRS went after the "hard" money (cash businesses) to find rather than the "easy" dollars (those who report their income), I would agree they are the money-makers. But they don't. What is not realized is that all the cuts to IRS have not been on the front lines, it has been to the administrative side, which any business would do in the same situation. The IRS has in fact, taken responsible steps to cut back on spending, through attrition and other means, to negate the sequestration effect, and is still doing a darn good job at collecting. Revenue's are at their highest ever, but will never keep up with the spending no matter how many agents are employed.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • HUH?
    FederalEmployee
    As a longtime IRS employee, I take offense to Spunky’s comments. First, the cuts in personnel have not just been on the administrative side. The number of Revenue Agents (field examiners), Tax Compliance Officers (office audits) and Revenue Officers (collection agents) has decreased significantly. We are the front line people who carry out some of the core functions of the IRS. What has exploded is the number of high-graded positions in the support functions. The IRS has many, many programs that do not further the core mission of processing returns, collecting taxes, enforcing the tax laws and providing help to taxpayers. Many of us would like to see these programs get the ax. This is the “fat” that needs to be cut. Secondly, I am highly offended by Spunky’s contention that “if in fact, the IRS went after the "hard" money (cash businesses) to find rather than the "easy" dollars (those who report their income)…but they don’t” Do you even work for the IRS? What makes you an expert on how the IRS determines which returns to examine? Are you familiar with our Criminal Investigative Division and the work they do? Third, Mr. Causey was merely trying to make a comparison between cutting sales people who bring in the money to cutting IRS employees who carry out the core agency functions. We all know that our tax system is highly dependant on voluntary compliance. Federal employees have been a punching bag for several years now. Please do not make it worse by bashing IRS employees.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Signs and Symbols
    FederalEmployee
    I do not know why these signs and symbols pop up. One of life's little mysteries.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Signs and Symbols
    UmbratilisFed
    These show up because the folks who write in compose on Word and paste in their message. If this site had an adequate spell check feature this could be avoided.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Welcome to the real world
    Mr Ed
    That is the first problem - "long-time IRS employee." Like many career politicians, your perspective is slanted and does not make for a lean and efficient government system. Corporate world has been creating efficiencies through use of new technology, while we at the IRS are still on training wheels. I have seen more IRS "long-timers" dragged kicking and screaming against more efficient use of technology and processes, dragging progress within the agency down. This is not a problem of staffing, but a problem of embracing change. No one is guaranteed a life-time job or career at the IRS or any government agency. anyone is expendible and can be replaced. It is our personal responsibility to keep developing skills and qualifications to stay marketable anywhere.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Experience, Mr. Ed, Not Politics
    FederalEmployee
    Mr. Ed, there is no problem with me being a "long time IRS employee". I am very good at what I do, and my experience and talents are an asset to the government. I do not know in which busines division you work, but I have NEVER seen any "IRS "long-timers" dragged kicking and screaming against more efficient use of technology and processes, dragging progress within the agency down." I laughed when the IRS assigned me my first computer 25+ years ago...it was a 20 pound monster with no hard drive. I agree with you, Mr. Ed, that no-one is "guaranteed" a life time job at the IRS or any government agency, and that we all are expendable and we all can be replaced. Exactly what is your problem with my posting, Mr. Ed? To what do you specifically object? By the way, I am a front line enforcement employee. If you think that makes me a "career politician", you need to study the definition of a "politician". You indicate that you work for the IRS. How many years do you have in? Do you plan on leaving soon, lest you too become a "career politician"? As far as "staying marketable anywhere", I can think fo several large companies which I have audited in the past that would be more than happy to hire me (as well as other top-notch agents)to work in their tax departments. I have stayed because I like what I do, I believe in what I do, and I am very good at what I do. So what exactly, Mr. Ed is your issue? Both of my posts have advocated cutting programs that do not further the core functions of the IRS. Is that your issue? We all agree that technology is necessary, and that technology continuously evolves. Some jobs cannot be replaced by a government-issued laptop. I was pointing out that human beings are still needed to perform exams, audits and collections. Is that your issue? Please explain it to me because I am puzzled by your denigrating response. If you truly believe that working past a certain number of years is somehow wretched, then you must believe that experience is a very bad thing. If you had to choose between having a surgeon with 25 years of experience or one with 6 months of surgical experience, which one would you select to remove a tumor from your brain? Did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? You should be ashamed of your self for your post.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • IRS
    Big Joe
    If you want an interesting perspective, do a search on the IT (2210) career field for GS 14 and 15. Of the 5-6 pages, at least 2-3 are for the IRS. Why??
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Wrong
    Linda
    IRS has not just made cuts to Administration. I understand I my area sir every three people who left one was hired. That is the front lines folks. I have more work getting shoved at me than I can do. Which make you hurry, cut corners and not do, in my opinion, the best job. And when Tax Cheats get away with it on one audit, they are three time worse if you see them again, not better. If you catch most of the issues, they are better the next time.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Eh?
    SGT Pepper
    The overwhelming majority of the work my Agents do is finding unreported income. Since my group of Agents is no different than several hundred other groups across the nation, I have no earthly idea why you feel the IRS doesn't go after cash businesses. Your opinion on this subject is completely erroneous. Cuts not to the front lines? My staff of Agents was 12 two years ago, now it's 6. Not a single one who left due to retirement or finding another job has been replaced. Again, no different than any other unit within the IRS and thus another erroneous opinion on your part. Responsible steps to cut back spending? Perhaps. However the point of this article, clearly, is to suggest that cutting the IRS budget is nonsensical. Here's a very simple fact. With two weeks work, each and every one of my Agents generates tax assessments that exceed their entire salary and benefits package. The other 50 weeks of the year are pure, 100% profit for the government coffers. Refusing to hire 6 new agents for my group costs the government millions of dollars in lost revenue that will never be recouped. Furloughing them in Sequestration produces a similar result that will cost the government far more than it saves by sending them home. This is the point of the article, the stuff about revenue generation is just semantics.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Amen
    FederalEmployee
    I agree with you 100%. Are you one of the lucky Team Managers that has a secretary? Next month I will be closing two cases the assessment on which would pay the life-time salaries and benefits of 10 agents.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It's all politics
    contrarian
    When the cuts aren't even, ask yourself who gets what and why?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }