If the program costs $80B, then it costs $80B. And it's taken in...well, lemme check my records...$1B.
Sorry if my brain can't do the mental hula hoops it takes to calculate that any other way.
The IRS cost $16B total to operate in 2023. Federal tax revenue in 2023 was $4.44T.
This idea that you're trying to project, that funding the IRS is somehow not worth the cost, is absolutely bonkers.
That's not what the article says. I'm just reading and quoting.
Yes. But as soon as you realize you've left out important information or someone else adds important information, it's important to accept that into your reasoning. It seemed like you were fighting back at them in your replies, and doubling down on your initial claims which you now know weren't complete. You weren't wrong with the information you had at the time when you commented, but it made you look stubborn by not being willing to accept new information or learn. Just my two cents as an outsider.
Your quote states they get $80b over ten years. How many years has it been? You got this!
To be fair, if it costs 80b in 10 years and has only been implemented for 2 years, then it only cost 16b to recover 1b.
Listen, I'm just reading and quoting. Take it up with the writer.
No you're not, you're quoting in a misleading way, you are drawing your own (incorrect) conclusion that recovering 1b cost 80b which is patently incorrect even in the bit of the article you quoted and you refuse to engage anyone who is poining out that you're wrong using good faith arguments, instead saying you're "just reading and quoting" which is the equivalent of covering your ears and going "LALALA".
If the program costs $80B, then it costs $80B. And it's taken in...well, lemme check my records...$1B.
Sorry if my brain can't do the mental hula hoops it takes to calculate that any other way.
The IRS cost $16B total to operate in 2023. Federal tax revenue in 2023 was $4.44T.
This idea that you're trying to project, that funding the IRS is somehow not worth the cost, is absolutely bonkers.
That's not what the article says. I'm just reading and quoting.
Yes. But as soon as you realize you've left out important information or someone else adds important information, it's important to accept that into your reasoning. It seemed like you were fighting back at them in your replies, and doubling down on your initial claims which you now know weren't complete. You weren't wrong with the information you had at the time when you commented, but it made you look stubborn by not being willing to accept new information or learn. Just my two cents as an outsider.
Your quote states they get $80b over ten years. How many years has it been? You got this!
To be fair, if it costs 80b in 10 years and has only been implemented for 2 years, then it only cost 16b to recover 1b.
Listen, I'm just reading and quoting. Take it up with the writer.
No you're not, you're quoting in a misleading way, you are drawing your own (incorrect) conclusion that recovering 1b cost 80b which is patently incorrect even in the bit of the article you quoted and you refuse to engage anyone who is poining out that you're wrong using good faith arguments, instead saying you're "just reading and quoting" which is the equivalent of covering your ears and going "LALALA".