(08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 11:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]I have a feeling this is nothing more than one giant Deception tactic.
Look at this shiny object over here while I do some other stuff over there that you are missing.
Things removed from the font page due to the search of Trump's home.
1. A bill (called the Inflation Reduction Act) that was anything but inflation reducing. It hires 87,000 new IRS agents, has billions and billions of dollars targeted for Climate Change stuff, and countless new taxes/costs for the average American.
2. Open Borders disaster
3. Crime rates
4. Inflation
5. Biden's failing mental health
6. Harris' word salad
7. Anniversary of the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal
8. Hunter Biden
9. Trump endorsed GOP primary winners
I could go on but you get the picture....
I tend to not believe they purposefully raided his residence to wag the dog because I don't think they're that smart but they will definitely never let a crisis go to waste.
It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
(08-15-2022 12:30 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 11:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]I have a feeling this is nothing more than one giant Deception tactic.
Look at this shiny object over here while I do some other stuff over there that you are missing.
Things removed from the font page due to the search of Trump's home.
1. A bill (called the Inflation Reduction Act) that was anything but inflation reducing. It hires 87,000 new IRS agents, has billions and billions of dollars targeted for Climate Change stuff, and countless new taxes/costs for the average American.
2. Open Borders disaster
3. Crime rates
4. Inflation
5. Biden's failing mental health
6. Harris' word salad
7. Anniversary of the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal
8. Hunter Biden
9. Trump endorsed GOP primary winners
I could go on but you get the picture....
I tend to not believe they purposefully raided his residence to wag the dog because I don't think they're that smart but they will definitely never let a crisis go to waste.
It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
It's politics brother. The narrative was changed, regardless of the accuracy. I never said it was the truth.
The narrative is all politicians care about. I.e. parroting Trump saying Nazi's were good people in Charlottesville, or Trump is racist because he said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Both were lies but the narrative stuck. Both sides do it.
(08-15-2022 12:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:30 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]Things removed from the font page due to the search of Trump's home.
1. A bill (called the Inflation Reduction Act) that was anything but inflation reducing. It hires 87,000 new IRS agents, has billions and billions of dollars targeted for Climate Change stuff, and countless new taxes/costs for the average American.
2. Open Borders disaster
3. Crime rates
4. Inflation
5. Biden's failing mental health
6. Harris' word salad
7. Anniversary of the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal
8. Hunter Biden
9. Trump endorsed GOP primary winners
I could go on but you get the picture....
I tend to not believe they purposefully raided his residence to wag the dog because I don't think they're that smart but they will definitely never let a crisis go to waste.
It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
It's politics brother. The narrative was changed, regardless of the accuracy. I never said it was the truth.
The narrative is all politicians care about. I.e. parroting Trump saying Nazi's were good people in Charlottesville, or Trump is racist because he said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Both were lies but the narrative stuck. Both sides do it.
The narrative being changed because of how easily it was being disproven.
(08-15-2022 12:36 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:30 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
It's politics brother. The narrative was changed, regardless of the accuracy. I never said it was the truth.
The narrative is all politicians care about. I.e. parroting Trump saying Nazi's were good people in Charlottesville, or Trump is racist because he said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Both were lies but the narrative stuck. Both sides do it.
The narrative being changed because of how easily it was being disproven.
But the truth rarely gains steam once a narrative has been set.
(08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
(08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
(08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
Just read the damn article please
https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agent...eck-biden/
(08-15-2022 12:58 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
It's another government boondoggle. Most of it will likely end up as a kickback.
Lying to make things seem like something they are not is a trademark of you leftists. Don't project.
(08-15-2022 01:02 PM)appst89 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:58 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
It's another government boondoggle. Most of it will likely end up as a kickback.
Lying to make things seem like something they are not is a trademark of you leftists. Don't project.
As it's currently constructed the only one lying is hambone and you know it, you can say the funds will be mismanaged that's just an opinion, him saying it will be close to a million to hire each employee is a damn lie.
(08-15-2022 01:00 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
Just read the damn article please https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agent...eck-biden/
Quote:The IRS currently uses technology from the 1960s, called COBOL, to process and intake individual tax returns.
Holy hell. There probably aren't a 1000 people in the US that know how to program COBOL. My buddy's dad works for a distribution center for convenience stores that used COBOL. When he went to retire 5 years ago they had to double his salary because to find his replacement would have cost more than that. He banked for 2 years while they replaced the inventory system with something more modern.
(08-15-2022 12:27 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:26 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:23 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 11:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: [ -> ]I have a feeling this is nothing more than one giant Deception tactic.
Look at this shiny object over here while I do some other stuff over there that you are missing.
Things removed from the font page due to the search of Trump's home.
1. A bill (called the Inflation Reduction Act) that was anything but inflation reducing. It hires 87,000 new IRS agents, has billions and billions of dollars targeted for Climate Change stuff, and countless new taxes/costs for the average American.
2. Open Borders disaster
3. Crime rates
4. Inflation
5. Biden's failing mental health
6. Harris' word salad
7. Anniversary of the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal
8. Hunter Biden
9. Trump endorsed GOP primary winners
I could go on but you get the picture....
I tend to not believe they purposefully raided his residence to wag the dog because I don't think they're that smart but they will definitely never let a crisis go to waste.
Name one new tax on the average American in the act.
Does there NEED to be a new one? We're all already taxed enough. It's past time to defund a large part of the Fed Gov, starting with the DoJ.
The claim is new taxes I want to see the work.
I'm not speaking for WKUApollo, but it's notable that he said "new taxes/costs" and that's an important point. Because corporations ARE going to see new taxes and corporations pass the cost of expenses, including taxes, on to their customers. So, yeah - there WILL be new costs borne by average Americans.
(08-15-2022 12:58 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
Look in your own article. See below. Unfortunately for you, I understand words.
(08-15-2022 01:00 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
Just read the damn article please https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agent...eck-biden/
Read your OWN damn article...
From the article...
A
Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would
enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions.
That's from your own article.
(08-15-2022 01:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:58 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
Look in your own article. See below. Unfortunately for you, I understand words.
(08-15-2022 01:00 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
Just read the damn article please https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agent...eck-biden/
Read your OWN damn article...
From the article...
A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions.
That's from your own article.
Part of the investment yes not all of it.
(08-15-2022 01:09 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]As it's currently constructed the only one lying is hambone and you know it, you can say the funds will be mismanaged that's just an opinion, him saying it will be close to a million to hire each employee is a damn lie.
Its not me saying that... It's the Treasury department, in your own article. I can explain the words to you, but I can't understand them for you. You letting an accountant or data entry clerk who makes 75k retire and replace them with a computer programmer who makes 250k doesn't IN ANY WAY mean that if doesn't cost 175k to hire that person.
And the 'cost' I am stating is simple math, that your own article and the US treasure agrees with. It costs $80mm to hire 87,000 people over 10 years. That rounds to $1mm per person. If you hired them ALL in the first year, that would be almost 10k PER PERSON PER YEAR on top of the salaries of the people they are replacing... and only goes up for each of those people not hired in the first year.
Just because you can't understand your own article doesn't mean I'm lying.
(08-15-2022 01:12 PM)bobdizole Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 01:00 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
Just read the damn article please https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agent...eck-biden/
Quote:The IRS currently uses technology from the 1960s, called COBOL, to process and intake individual tax returns.
Holy hell. There probably aren't a 1000 people in the US that know how to program COBOL. My buddy's dad works for a distribution center for convenience stores that used COBOL. When he went to retire 5 years ago they had to double his salary because to find his replacement would have cost more than that. He banked for 2 years while they replaced the inventory system with something more modern.
Thank you for realizing part of the reason why the investment needed to happen.
(08-15-2022 12:36 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:30 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:19 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
It's politics brother. The narrative was changed, regardless of the accuracy. I never said it was the truth.
The narrative is all politicians care about. I.e. parroting Trump saying Nazi's were good people in Charlottesville, or Trump is racist because he said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Both were lies but the narrative stuck. Both sides do it.
The narrative being changed because of how easily it was being disproven.
8-9 billion for the IRS. So what are they using it for if not inflating their numbers. That’s roughly $100,000 a year/employee. All while Americans are suffering.
(08-15-2022 01:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 01:09 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ]As it's currently constructed the only one lying is hambone and you know it, you can say the funds will be mismanaged that's just an opinion, him saying it will be close to a million to hire each employee is a damn lie.
Its not me saying that... It's the Treasury department, in your own article. I can explain the words to you, but I can't understand them for you. You letting an accountant or data entry clerk who makes 75k retire and replace them with a computer programmer who makes 250k doesn't IN ANY WAY mean that if doesn't cost 175k to hire that person.
And the 'cost' I am stating is simple math, that your own article and the US treasure agrees with. It costs $80mm to hire 87,000 people over 10 years. That rounds to $1mm per person. If you hired them ALL in the first year, that would be almost 10k PER PERSON PER YEAR on top of the salaries of the people they are replacing... and only goes up for each of those people not hired in the first year.
Just because you can't understand your own article doesn't mean I'm lying.
You keep making it seem like all the money is going towards hiring which is a lie.
(08-15-2022 01:31 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:36 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:30 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm aware of that. Yes, some would be replacements for retirees, some in IT, some just desk people, etc. Not sure why the replacement positions would be included tho since they're already budgeted for but, nevertheless, a net of 20,000 - 30,000 new employees would be added.
Regardless, I didn't mentioned the validity, I merely stated that the message wasn't on the front page.
The message of 87k new agents like you claim being a lie.
It's politics brother. The narrative was changed, regardless of the accuracy. I never said it was the truth.
The narrative is all politicians care about. I.e. parroting Trump saying Nazi's were good people in Charlottesville, or Trump is racist because he said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. Both were lies but the narrative stuck. Both sides do it.
The narrative being changed because of how easily it was being disproven.
8-9 billion for the IRS. So what are they using it for if not inflating their numbers. That’s roughly $100,000 a year/employee. All while Americans are suffering.
Different jobs pay differently thought yall liked the free market.
(08-15-2022 01:26 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 01:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:58 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Hambone10' pid='18375117' dateline='1660586111']
[quote='tennis2k4' pid='18375033' dateline='1660583981']
It does not hire 87k new agents it's 87k employees some of which are agents and mostly to replace retiring work force in next ten years. Thought this had been covered to the point of exhaustion.
So why does it cost almost $1mm per employee?? And as others have said, this is ON TOP OF the salary now not being paid to the retiring employee? More significantly, why is this part of a special bill and not simply part of the IRS annual budget and budgeting process?
A lot of the money is going to modernizing the IRS offices, you're using a lie to make things seem like something they are not.
Look in your own article. See below. Unfortunately for you, I understand words. $6byn out of 80byn is not 'a lot'.
(08-15-2022 01:00 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-15-2022 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Read your OWN damn article...
From the article...
A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and wouldn’t be new positions.
That's from your own article.
Part of the investment yes not all of it.
A) I didn't say all, did I? Of course not.
B) your article doesn't say 'part'.... so I find it disingenuous for you to accuse me of lying when I use the same specific language that your own article does.
If you read the link within your link to the treasury report, the only thing I see that speaks to anything other than personnel is
Quote: For example, nearly $6 billion is dedicated to IT modernization.
so its 74byn for 87,000 employees. BFD. That's why THEY didn't say 'part', and why I didn't either. Yes, 90+% is 'part'. AKA 'the overwhelming majority'
It ALSO says....
Quote:Because the expansion in the IRS’s budget is phased in over a 10-year horizon, each year the IRS’s workforce should grow by no more than a manageable 15%. By the end of the decade, however, the IRS’s budget would be roughly 40% above 2011 levels in real terms as a result of this proposal. This is a sizable increase, but a necessary one given that the IRS’s responsibilities have grown dramatically over the intervening period. Yet even with this increase, the IRS budget would still not return to early 1990s levels as a share of gross collections.
So while you can argue and ***** and moan and claim I'm lying, your own links betray you....so you can kiss my ass on whom is the liar.
And you STILL haven't answered the question as to why this isn't or hasn't been part of the IRS's annual appropriations bill/request and is instead buried within a bill designed to 'reduce inflation'.
Average salary of 76k per employee multiplied by the new employees multiplied by ten years gives a hair over 66 billion.