The IRS said Friday that it has recovered $1.3 billion in unpaid taxes from high-income Americans who had either failed to file their returns or who hadn’t fully paid what they owed.

The announcement, made jointly with the U.S. Treasury Department, is aimed at highlighting the agency’s ramped-up enforcement efforts against tax cheats, which have been funded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

That IRS funding has proved controversial, with some Republican lawmakers falsely claiming the money would be used to hire 87,000 new IRS agents to “to audit Walmart shoppers.”

  • Xanis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    For all those that want to complain:

    Go ahead and do something about it. Otherwise, swallow your catharsis for a moment and recognize that small and consistent steps yield the changes we need, and that there will be setbacks.

    The trick then becomes dedication. Something, I should point out, we in the U.S. are really bad at.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Now put those dollars to work for the people instead of throwing it directly into the military sector.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Those 21,000 taxpayers who have filed their taxes were the first to respond after the IRS reached out to alert them that they needed to file, according to a senior Treasury official who spoke on a conference call with reporters. The IRS is likely to recoup hundreds of millions more in new tax revenue from the remaining 104,000 people who still need to file, he said.

    They were millionaires, not billionaires.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure. My point is, they voluntarily complied, after receiving notices, and aren’t the billionaires who can afford to fight it flee.

          • Maeve@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If you say so. I’m not mad or disappointed, just noticed. I’m glad they voluntarily complied. Saves taxpayers the cost of prosecution.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            This is what is known as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

            I disagree.

            If @Maeve@kbin.earth had said “They were millionaires, not billionaires, so the IRS should stop pursuing it.” THAT would be “perfect is the enemy of good”.

            Instead this is like:

            A: “We cured cancer! Hurray!”

            B: “Apparently we only cured Pink Eye. So, awesome on that as it reduces some human suffering, but we still need to keep working on curing cancer too.”

      • TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They probably mean that we’re still not targeting the right people. Well, all of the right people. Millionaires are definitely still on that list.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Side question. What is most people’s definition of “rich” these days?

        Is it:

        • a rich person can buy any car they want off an average car lot in cash

        or

        • a rich person never has to work another day in their life
        • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Obviously both can be true, depending on perspective. But being rich is a spectrum.

          If you’re a poor studen, the 40 year old who can pay cash for a car but cannot retire still may seem rich but could very well be firmly middle class.

          Someone in their 20s who never has to work is more likely to be considered rich by most anyone’s standards. But someone in their 70s who is living modestly in retirement would still meet your second definition but few would consider them actually rich.

          I think using net worth is a better measuring stick. In the US someone worth more than $10m is almost certainly living very well off and most would consider them rich.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I agree with everything you said. However, your usage in your post didn’t seem to speak to age or a sliding spectrum, but something more objective. It felt you had envisioned someone who was “rich” by your own definition. I was curious what kind of person/net worth you were thinking about when that was posted.

            • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Well the $70,000 average recouped per person in this effort would certainly imply that those targeted are indeed “rich”, or at least high income.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Well the $70,000 average recouped per person in this effort would certainly imply that those targeted are indeed “rich”, or at least high income.

                So an annual before tax income of $218,750 is considered rich then? (32% is the tax rate which would produce $70,000 tax liability in a single year). I understand this is purely subjective. There’s no right or wrong answer. I appreciate you sharing your view.

                • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  So an annual before tax income of $218,750 is considered rich then?

                  I mean, yeah? Kind of? I’d say it’s at least lower-upper class, which some people may consider rich. But, again, in my head rich is more about net worth, not income. Once someone’s investments are working for them then I’d say that’s a key indicator.