FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Privatizing the IRS?

shutterstock_263479385

It was as true as turnips is . . . It was as true . . .  as taxes is.  And nothing is truer than them.

— Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

This week’s column is a quiz.

For purposes of the quiz, assume that you are in charge of running a business. Your business makes money by providing services to your customers for which the customers are expected to pay.  Most of your customers pay as they are billed but, as in almost all businesses, there are a few people, known as deadbeats, who do not want to pay, and sometimes there are customers who need help in understanding how to calculate what they owe.  One of your tasks is to decide how to deal with people who don’t pay for services they have received and as you analyze the situation, you realize that you have two choices.

Choice number one is to turn over the accounts of people who owe you money to a collection agency.  It agrees to keep one-third of all the amounts it collects and to turn over the rest to you.  Choice number two is to hire additional employees whose job is to collect the money your customers owe. Although you have to pay salaries to those employees, you keep all the money they collect and their salaries are not affected by their success rate. You know from past experience that for every dollar you invest in the in house collection process,  your return is almost $5.00. What do you do?

Now an additional element is added to the quiz. Some years ago you hired an outside collection agency to collect the money you were owed. You were owed $1.4 billion. The collection agency led you to believe it would be able to collect that entire amount.  Instead, it collected only $49 million, missing the goal you had set for it by $900,551,000.  Do you keep working with the collection agency or bring the business in house?

Here is the next question. When the board of directors reviews the foregoing statistic one member of the board says: “the real choice is whether we use private collection agencies or let these tax debts go uncollected.  I hope we don’t take an enormous step backward in our efforts to close the tax gap by eliminating a program that’s working.” Do you ask the board member what he means by “working” or do you just ignore him?

Now we introduce another factor. A majority of your board agrees that debt collection should remain in house and should not be farmed out to outside firms because of the very poor performance by the outside firm used in the past.  But some members of the board are unhappy with a high ranking employee. That employee has tenure and has engaged in some activities that have nothing to do with the company’s collection efforts since they do not fall under the disliked employee’s jurisdiction. Since you lack the ability to fire the employee described above, do you express your displeasure with the activities of that employee by cutting funding for the collection department?

Here are your last two questions. Because the product you are selling is complicated, similar to, for example, a furniture product sold by Ikea, those dealing with your product frequently have questions as to how to assemble the information they have to provide you so you can tell them the cost of the services they have received.  In order to make the process simpler you have historically hired people to answer questions on the telephone. In a typical year you got as many as 110 million calls from people wanting to pay their bills and needing help.  Some of your board members are still unhappy with the above described employee. Do you reduce funding for the collection department so it can only answer 43 percent of the calls you receive each year?  That is the end of the quiz. Here are the answers according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) budget has been cut by 17 percent since 2010, after adjusting for inflation, forcing the IRS to reduce its workforce, severely scale back employee training, and delay much-needed upgrades to information technology systems.  These steps, in turn, have weakened the IRS’s ability to enforce the nation’s tax laws and serve taxpayers efficiently . . . . As seven former IRS commissioners from both Republican and Democratic administrations have written:  “Over the last fifty years, none of us has ever witnessed anything like what has happened to the IRS appropriations over the last five years and the impact these appropriations reductions are having on our tax system.”

Here is an additional bit of information: ignoring past experience Congress has decided that in some circumstances the IRS can once again use private debt collection agencies.

Go figure.

Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.15.13 AM

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
Alison Barros
Dear White American
Celia Bottger
If Ireland Can Reject Fossil Fuels, Your Town Can Too
Ian Scott Horst
Less Voting, More Revolution
Peter Certo
Trump Snubbed McCain, Then the Media Snubbed the Rest of Us
Dan Ritzman
Drilling ANWR: One of Our Last Links to the Wild World is in Danger
Brandon Do
The World and Palestine, Palestine and the World
Chris Wright
An Updated and Improved Marxism
Daryan Rezazad
Iran and the Doomsday Machine
Patrick Bond
Africa’s Pioneering Marxist Political Economist, Samir Amin (1931-2018)
Louis Proyect
Memoir From the Underground
Binoy Kampmark
Meaningless Titles and Liveable Cities: Melbourne Loses to Vienna
Andrew Stewart
Blackkklansman: Spike Lee Delivers a Masterpiece
Elizabeth Lennard
Alan Chadwick in the Budding Grove: Story Summary for a Documentary Film
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail