It depends on how you set up the mandatory funding it may change over time. Would the mandatory level be adjusted annually? I see it as kind of three legs on a stool: We need to close up some of the loopholes on the corporate side, we need to put a wealth tax in place and we need serious enforcement. There are other areas where I believe we should change the law to expand revenue - a wealth tax, a book-profits tax - but this is simply about enforcement to make sure corporations and rich people pay the taxes that are already due. So the mandatory funding would mean the IRS could commit to hiring and training a team of experts who can focus on giant corporations that hide their money overseas or manipulate their income reports, and the team will be far more effective at enforcing current law. The problem is not only that IRS funding has been cut, it’s that when funding goes up and down and up and down and up and down, the IRS doesn’t have the resources to build out a more expert group that has the skill set to go after the really sophisticated tax dodgers. I have proposed nearly doubling the funding for the IRS but also making a chunk of their funding mandatory and targeted toward high-income individuals and corporations. So there are two parts we’re talking about - one is how much money, and it’s also the way in which the money is put into the hands of the IRS. I’m pushing for more support for IRS enforcement so that the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations will have to follow the law just like everyone else. We need to reverse our approach to the IRS. How much money are you talking about making mandatory as part of the annual IRS budget, which in the current federal fiscal year is appropriated at $12 billion and would climb to $13.2 billion under President Joe Biden’s request for fiscal 2022? This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |