Republicans call it an 'army' but IRS hires will replace retirees, do IT, says Treasury

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
21,136
24,725
113
You think that’s the case for all 87,000 spots?

It’s like Target hiring for a security guard and the right screaming about why all Target roles are required to be proficient on pepper spray use.
I didn’t know and that’s why I asked.
 

Keehawk

HR Heisman
May 24, 2011
5,311
5,003
113
The link I saw said the irs had 75,000 employees in 2019. Am I looking at something wrong here?
 

Keehawk

HR Heisman
May 24, 2011
5,311
5,003
113
84,000. That is in March. A few changes I am sure where made in requests. Is 89,000 in the similar ballpark?
Ok? That's assuming they actually got 10,000 hired but that's not the point of my original comment. I'm sorry Google is too right wing for you when it told me there were 74,454 employees in 2019 which is what I asked. I'm still very confused what you are trying to say.

Screenshot-20220819-185127-Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AreWeCross

Funky Bunch

HR Legend
Mar 30, 2011
26,177
42,238
113
I didn’t know and that’s why I asked.
This may help some



If you click on Personnel, you can see a breakdown of employees. Special Agents are the ones that carry guns. They are also referred to as Criminal Investigation Division. They are similiar to FBI and DEA agents and could go in with those guys in a raid. There are 4x as many Revenue Agents. When you're watching the news and they refer to the new agents, these are what they are talking about. They are NOT allowed to carry guns and they need to request an armed escort if they don't feel safe. But if you watch the news, you will be led to believe otherwise.
 

NorthernHawkeye

HR Legend
Dec 23, 2007
26,857
16,738
113
This may help some



If you click on Personnel, you can see a breakdown of employees. Special Agents are the ones that carry guns. They are also referred to as Criminal Investigation Division. They are similiar to FBI and DEA agents and could go in with those guys in a raid. There are 4x as many Revenue Agents. When you're watching the news and they refer to the new agents, these are what they are talking about. They are NOT allowed to carry guns and they need to request an armed escort if they don't feel safe. But if you watch the news, you will be led to believe otherwise.

The below link is a good article on this.

A retired IRS Special Agent called into Hannity's Radio show two nights ago and tried to provide some context. Hannity was a bit arrogant and argumentive about the matter.

The agent explained to Hannity that agents used the tax code to take down Al Capone. Watch the movie Untouchables for some background on this.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Funky Bunch

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,468
36,988
113
How do you think the IRS, or any federal dept, is funded?
How do you?

I think they have a budget approved by Congress. I believe one of the things they use that budget for is to pay employees and I believe that money is allocated by positions they intend to fund. If a employee in one of those funded positions quits or retires in the middle of a fiscal year the money is still there to hire a replacement.

That’s what I believe…
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

AreWeCross

All-Conference
May 2, 2022
352
313
63
Looks like the right wingers are getting a little nervous about cheating on their taxes, what with all of these new hires to assist in auditing tax returns. I guess I don't see the problem, unless of course they're used to cheating. I wonder where they learned how to do that. They ought to be thanking the donald tax cheater trump.
I consider myself a conservative and I am completely in favor of enforcement of our tax law. With that said, I wish they would simplify the tax codes so that less enforcement was needed.

When it comes to individual returns, eliminate all deductions except for the standard deduction, and eliminate all tax credits. Allow the standard deduction for each dependent (i.e. a family of 4 gets the standard deduction x4). All income (i.e. W2, 1099R, interest, cap gains, dividends, etc) should be taxed at either a flat tax or progressive tax (I don't really care which one) should be taxed at the same rate.

When it comes to businesses and corporations, I have no idea how to simplify.
 

Funky Bunch

HR Legend
Mar 30, 2011
26,177
42,238
113
I consider myself a conservative and I am completely in favor of enforcement of our tax law. With that said, I wish they would simplify the tax codes so that less enforcement was needed.

When it comes to individual returns, eliminate all deductions except for the standard deduction, and eliminate all tax credits. Allow the standard deduction for each dependent (i.e. a family of 4 gets the standard deduction x4). All income (i.e. W2, 1099R, interest, cap gains, dividends, etc) should be taxed at either a flat tax or progressive tax (I don't really care which one) should be taxed at the same rate.

When it comes to businesses and corporations, I have no idea how to simplify.
I agree with this. I think you mean bring back exemptions for each dependent like it was pre 2017. But the complex tax law is responsible for the IRS money pit. It could be so much simpler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AreWeCross

AreWeCross

All-Conference
May 2, 2022
352
313
63
I agree with this. I think you mean bring back exemptions for each dependent like it was pre 2017. But the complex tax law is responsible for the IRS money pit. It could be so much simpler.
I think the exemptions were less than what I propose, but it is the same concept.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,816
53,868
113
How do you?

I think they have a budget approved by Congress. I believe one of the things they use that budget for is to pay employees and I believe that money is allocated by positions they intend to fund. If a employee in one of those funded positions quits or retires in the middle of a fiscal year the money is still there to hire a replacement.

That’s what I believe…
So tell us how they lost ~25,000 positions over the past 15 years.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,468
36,988
113
Ahhhh…so they have to get funding every year for these positions that you seemed to think were funded in perpetuity. So a guy who retired THIS year may NOT have his position funded NEXT year. Glad we cleared that up for you.
You don’t need a huge budget increase to maintain current funded positions. You need to maintain current budget…hence using “replacing baby boomers” isn’t a good reason for a budget increase.

Increasing staff, raising pay grades to make the positions more attractive for new hires are. Just pointing out “replacing baby boomer retirees” really isn’t a good reason for massive budget increases.

To replace current positions already funded requires maintaining current budget with inflation factored in.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,816
53,868
113
You don’t need a huge budget increase to maintain current funded positions. You need to maintain current budget…hence using “replacing baby boomers” isn’t a good reason for a budget increase.

Increasing staff, raising pay grades to make the positions more attractive for new hires are. Just pointing out “replacing baby boomer retirees” really isn’t a good reason for massive budget increases.

To replace current positions already funded requires maintaining current budget with inflation factored in.
Ok …typing slowly…they are funding current positions for the next decade and adding somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 new positions to bring staffing back to approximately 2010 levels. Do you honestly think that over the next decade they are going to more than double the size of the IRS??
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,468
36,988
113
Ok …typing slowly…they are funding current positions for the next decade and adding somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 new positions to bring staffing back to approximately 2010 levels. Do you honestly think that over the next decade they are going to more than double the size of the IRS??
Never said that or even insinuated that. Simply stated you don’t need to increase funding to replace retirements from positions already on the books. That’s it
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,816
53,868
113
Never said that or even insinuated that. Simply stated you don’t need to increase funding to replace retirements from positions already on the books. That’s it
No, you don't. But you do need money NEXT year to pay for the employees you have THIS year...ALL of them. The funding for THIS year's agents is for THIS year ONLY. In order to INCREASE the number of employees...you need MORE money next year so you can hire MORE people. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that. And for six more years under this measure.
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,468
36,988
113
No, you don't. But you do need money NEXT year to pay for the employees you have THIS year...ALL of them. The funding for THIS year's agents is for THIS year ONLY. In order to INCREASE the number of employees...you need MORE money next year so you can hire MORE people. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that. And for six more years under this measure.
I agree they need to hire more people and for that you need additional funding.

Simply stated that to replace existing positions you don’t need to increase funding. Have a good night.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,236
22,931
113
I agree they need to hire more people and for that you need additional funding.

Simply stated that to replace existing positions you don’t need to increase funding. Have a good night.
???? So in this job market you think they can get away with no raises? No increase in costs for benefits? SMFH
 
  • Haha
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2

HawkRCID

HR Heisman
Nov 7, 2018
5,369
10,514
113
Literally Trump turned the IRS into the biggest dumpster fire….I never had problems getting my refund until the Trump years…then I would call in and never be able to actually talk to a human….then MONTHS later the refund would magically appear….they need all the help they can get…

Only positive I will say is they did pay me interest…
 

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,468
36,988
113
???? So in this job market you think they can get away with no raises? No increase in costs for benefits? SMFH
No…I said to give pay raises you need to increase budget. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with increasing the size and budget of the IRS either even though I think this increase is excessive.

I just don’t want to be told that a budget increase is needed for replacing retirees…their replacements aren’t going to be starting at step 10 like the retirees likely are so their replacements are a budgetary wash IMO.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,236
22,931
113
No…I said to give pay raises you need to increase budget. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with increasing the size and budget of the IRS either even though I think this increase is excessive.

I just don’t want to be told that a budget increase is needed for replacing retirees…their replacements aren’t going to be starting at step 10 like the retirees likely are so their replacements are a budgetary wash IMO.
SMH - the budget amount is to replace retirees, increases and additional personnel. And a lot of other stuff.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2