Elon Musk, new co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency declared this week that the new outfit will seek to audit the IRS.
It started with Musk asking X users what they think should happen to the IRS budget, given that it just asked for an increase of $20 billion.
Due to an error in legislative language, $20 billion in IRS funding is locked up.
If it is not unlocked, the IRS will have to go on a hiring freeze. (oh no)
The IRS is trying desperately to get this fixed in the next funding legislation which must pass by December 20th. They… pic.twitter.com/20DHzHqKY4 — Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) November 28, 2024
The IRS just said it wants $20B more money.
Do you think it’s budget should be: — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 27, 2024
“Where is the care and compassion in that type of system? It is nowhere to be found! The IRS is not demonstrating care and compassion when it seizes people’s money. The taxpayers are not demonstrating care and compassion when they pay their taxes. The federal officials who send the money to Israel are not demonstrating care and compassion. The manufacturer of weaponry that receive purchases from the Israeli government using U.S. taxpayer money are also not demonstrating care and compassion.”
“The same holds true, of course, for all foreign aid.”
Americans who object to the Israeli government’s military campaign in Gaza rightly object to the massive amounts of money and armaments that the U.S. government has provided — and continues to provide — the Israeli government to wage its campaign. Why should American taxpayers who oppose the Israeli government’s actions be forced to fund a military campaign to which they object?
But doesn’t that principle apply to all foreign aid? The question that every American should be asking, especially in the context of the foreign aid to Israel, is: Why should American taxpayers be forced to fund any foreign regime whatsoever?
The common rationale for foreign aid to Israel is that such assistance shows that Americans are kind and benevolent. But that is a patently ridiculous notion when one breaks down the foreign-aid process.
We begin with the income tax and the IRS. Under America’s income-tax system, the federal government forcibly seizes a portion of people’s earnings. If someone refuses to pay his income taxes, he is confronted by the IRS, one of the most tyrannical and fearsome agencies in U.S. history, one that wields virtually omnipotent powers to collect income taxes. After all, if the IRS decrees that someone hasn’t paid his taxes, the IRS does not have to sue in court for the money. It has been given the omnipotent, totalitarian power to simply seize the money through garnishments, liens, attachments, and other non-judicial means.
Moreover, if someone knowingly refuses to pay his taxes, he is arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and forced to die in prison for his political sin. That’s certainly what they did to Irwin Schiff — and what they are willing to do to anyone else who refuses to pay his taxes.
After the IRS forcibly collects the tax money, other federal officials then distribute that tax money to the Israeli government, which turns around and uses it to buy weaponry from U.S. arms manufacturers.
Where is the care and compassion in that type of system? It is nowhere to be found! The IRS is not demonstrating care and compassion when it seizes people’s money. The taxpayers are not demonstrating care and compassion when they pay their taxes. The federal officials who send the money to Israel are not demonstrating care and compassion. The manufacturer of weaponry that receive purchases from the Israeli government using U.S. taxpayer money are also not demonstrating care and compassion.
This is, in fact, an evil system, one founded on force and one that is devoid of any care and compassion on the part of anyone.
President Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers including William Randolph Hearst and Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer. FDR also dropped the IRS hammer on political critics such as Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin and prominent Republicans like former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Perhaps Roosevelt’s most pernicious tax skulduggery occurred in 1944 when he spiked an IRS audit of massive illegal campaign contributions from a government contractor to Congressman Lyndon Johnson. LBJ’s career would likely have been destroyed if Texans had learned of his dirty-dealing. Instead, LBJ survived and scores of thousands of Americans and more than a million Vietnamese died as a result.
One hundred years ago, Senator James Couzens, a Michigan Republican, took to the Senate floor to denounce the Bureau of Internal Revenue for abusing its power and trampling innocent taxpayers. Couzens launched a sweeping Senate investigation of federal tax collectors. One year later, Internal Revenue Commissioner David Blair personally delivered a demand for $10 million in back taxes as Couzens stepped out of the Senate chamber. Couzens fought the case, and eventually proved that he had actually overpaid his taxes by roughly one million dollars, as David Burnham noted in his 1989 classic, A Law Unto Itself: The IRS and the Abuse of Power. But the precedent of the IRS exploiting its power to attack its critics was firmly established.
President Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers including William Randolph Hearst and Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer. FDR also dropped the IRS hammer on political critics such as Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin and prominent Republicans like former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Perhaps Roosevelt’s most pernicious tax skulduggery occurred in 1944 when he spiked an IRS audit of massive illegal campaign contributions from a government contractor to Congressman Lyndon Johnson. LBJ’s career would likely have been destroyed if Texans had learned of his dirty-dealing. Instead, LBJ survived and scores of thousands of Americans and more than a million Vietnamese died as a result.
President John F. Kennedy raised the political exploitation of the IRS to an art form. Shortly after capturing the presidency, JFK denounced “the discordant voices of extremism” and derided people “who would sow the seeds of doubt and hate” and make Americans distrust their leaders.
At a news conference a few days later, a reporter sought his views on the legality of campaign contributions supporting ”right-wing extremist groups.” Kennedy replied “As long as they meet the requirements of the tax law, I don’t think that the Federal Government can interfere or should interfere with the right of any individual to take any position he wants. The only thing we should be concerned about is that it does not represent a diversion of funds which might be taxable to—for nontaxable purposes. But that is another question, and I am sure the Internal Revenue system examines that.”
Actually, JFK heavily elbowed the IRS to make sure that they targeted the tax-exempt status of conservative organizations that had criticized Kennedy or his agenda. The IRS launched the Ideological Organizations Audit Project which targeted numerous right-leaning groups, including the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and the American Enterprise Institute. Shortly before his assassination, Kennedy specified that he wanted an “aggressive program” against the IRS targets. JFK also used the IRS to bolster compliance with “voluntary” price controls, targeting steel executives who defied the administration for audits.
A 1976 Senate report noted, “By directing tax audits at individuals and groups solely because of their political beliefs, the Ideological Organizations Audit Project established a precedent for a far more elaborate program of targeting ‘dissidents.’” After Richard Nixon took office, his administration quickly created a Special Services Staff (SSS) to mastermind “all IRS activities involving ideological, militant, subversive, radical, and similar type organizations.” More than 10,000 individuals and groups were targeted because of their political activism or slant between 1969 and 1973, including Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling and the John Birch Society. The IRS was also given a list of Nixon’s official enemies to, in the words of White House counsel John Dean, “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” Contributors to the Democratic Party were also high on Nixon’s target list as were many left-leaning organizations.
The Nixon administration also vastly expanded a secret computer database—the “Intelligence Gathering and Retrieval System” the IRS began in 1963 to sweep up information on individual Americans and groups. By 1975, the IRS had stockpiled data on almost half a million persons and groups; the program was abolished after its existence became known outside of official circles.
The exposure of Nixon’s IRS abuses profoundly weakened him during the uproar after the Watergate hotel break-in. The second article of his 1974 impeachment charged him with endeavoring to “obtain from the IRS…confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.” Congress enacted legislation to severely restrict political contacts between the White House and the IRS.
But the IRS continued its freelance work. After Senator Joe Montoya of New Mexico announced plans in 1972 to hold hearings on IRS abuses, the agency added his name to a list of tax protestors who were capable of violence against IRS agents. When IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander was challenged on the listing at a 1975 Senate hearing, he replied, “The only connection that I can think of immediately is that Senator Montoya is, after all, the Chairman of the IRS Appropriations Subcommittee, and some one might have thought that he did violence to our appropriation.” Information from the an IRS investigation of Montoya was leaked to The Washington Post. Partly as a result of the IRS leak, Montoya lost his reelection bid.
In the following decades, the IRS regularly sparked outrage by abusing innocent taxpayers but there was scant controversy about the agency’s politicalization until Bill Clinton took office. In 1995, the White House and the Democratic National Committee produced a 331-page report entitled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” which attacked magazines, think tanks, and other entities and individuals who had criticized President Clinton. In the subsequent years, many organizations mentioned in the White House report were hit by IRS audits. More than twenty conservative organizations—including the Heritage Foundation and The American Spectator—and almost a dozen high-profile Clinton critics were audited.
After Barack Obama was elected president, conservative groups mobilized to resist his policies. By mid-2010, conservative organizations were complaining of harassment by the IRS. IRS officials created a BOLO list—“Be On the Look Out”—for conservative organizations applying for nonprofit tax status.
“This move to bolster retirement contributions stands in stark contrast to recent data from the Bank of America highlighted by the Epoch Times, which has indicated a distressing trend of growing hardship withdrawals from 401(k) accounts. The uptick—36 percent higher than the same time last year—signals that despite the IRS’s incentivizing higher savings rates, financial hardships are compelling a significant number of Americans to dip into their retirement funds prematurely.“
As 2023 draws to a close, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued a call to action for taxpayers to reassess their withholding settings, a proactive step that could spare many from unforeseen tax bills or overpayments in 2024.
In a November 3rd advisory, the IRS underscored the importance of this review, emphasizing that a year-end adjustment, although late in 2023, could prevent the dual extremes of an inflated refund or an unexpected balance due when filing taxes. This guidance comes with the revelation that approximately 70 percent of taxpayers traditionally over-withhold, leading to refunds that essentially amount to interest-free loans to the government.
“Although it’s best for taxpayers to verify withholding early in the year, an adjustment made in the final weeks of 2023 could still help to avoid an unexpected result, such as a big refund or a balance due, when filing taxes next year,” the agency said.
Conversely, the sting of under-withholding is not to be underestimated. Taxpayers who find themselves on this end of the spectrum risk facing a significant financial hit come tax season, which could be exacerbated by penalties and interest for unpaid taxes accruing from the return’s original due date. Beyond the immediate financial impact, such tax debts can also have lasting repercussions on credit scores and, in severe cases, may result in wage garnishments, property liens, or even imprisonment.
“One of your predecessors, John Koskinen, testified before this committee in 2015, and he said it would not be advisable to audit your way out of the tax gap, yet that’s exactly what you’re trying to do,” Mr. Palmer said.
The title should say “ALL” Americans. That mark on your back is a target.
What self respecting person would work for the IRS?
IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel faced a grilling by lawmakers on Capitol Hill this past week, where he hinted that there’s a chance that the agency will—contrary to its repeated pledges—increase tax audits of Americans earning under $400,000.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner nominee Daniel Werfel testifies before the Senate Finance Committee during his nomination hearing in Washington on Feb. 15, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The question of whether the IRS will use some of the $80 billion or so funding boost to increase tax enforcement of people making less than $400,000 has been a contentious issue.
IRS and Treasury Department officials have pledged not to increase audit rates for this group of Americans, while Republicans and others have argued that this pledge is either false or wishful thinking.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has directed the IRS not to raise audit rates above historical levels for this group of taxpayers, while Mr. Werfel has repeatedly made the same pledge.
But a watchdog recently cast doubt on this promise, warning that Americans making less than $400,000 could inadvertently get caught in an enforcement dragnet because the IRS doesn’t have a clear definition of “high-income” and its enforcers use an outdated $200,000 high-income threshold as their default.
Meanwhile, the latest data on the tax gap (the difference between taxes owed and paid to the government) show that it has jumped from $601 billion to $688 billion, putting pressure on the IRS to ramp up enforcement and bring in more money for all the Biden administration’s big spending plans.
At the Oct. 24 hearing on Capitol Hill, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) pointed out that former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen once testified that increasing tax audits as a way to reduce the tax gap was not an advisable strategy.
“Welcome to the welfare-warfare state way of life, which plunders and loots people’s income to fund the ever-increasing expenditures of welfare-state programs and the warfare-state programs of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.“Welcome to the welfare-warfare state way of life, which plunders and loots people’s income to fund the ever-increasing expenditures of welfare-state programs and the warfare-state programs of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.
“Our American ancestors, of course, refused to make that trade. They didn’t want the government to take care of them. They wanted to take care of themselves, with their own money and on a purely voluntary, charitable basis. They also knew that a national-security state (or what they termed “standing armies”) would inevitably embroil them in endless wars and crises that would mean even higher taxes (and lower savings).
NOTICE: TONIGHT, Thursday, October 5, at 7 p.m. Eastern. Benjamin Power is our first presenter in our upcoming online Austrian conference: “How Austrian Economics Impacted My Life.” Register here to receive your Zoom link for an intellectually fun and enlightening session!
*****
According to an article at CNBC.com, 60% of adults said they are living paycheck to paycheck. According to an article at Forbes.com, about a third of Americans were unable to save any money in the past year. According to an article at Yahoo! Finance, while financial advisors recommend savings of $1 million to $2 million for retirees, the average 70-year-old has only around $426,000 in savings. On top of that, consider how much the value of people’s money is debased each decade through the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve.
Welcome to the welfare-warfare state way of life, which plunders and loots people’s income to fund the ever-increasing expenditures of welfare-state programs and the warfare-state programs of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.
If we think back to America’s founding principles with respect to income, wealth, welfare, and warfare, we find that our American ancestors chose a totally different way of life than today’s Americans have chosen.
Consider, for example, 1890 Americans. They lived without an income tax and an IRS to enforce it. Just think about that: People were free to keep 100 percent of their income, and there was nothing the government could do about it. Imagine if you were free to keep everything you earned. Imagine if that had been case during your entire work life.
When Americans were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, they obviously were able to save a larger percentage of their income. Would’t you be saving more money if suddenly you no longer had to pay any income taxes whatsoever?
Consider how the IRS recently pried open PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App accounts with transactions over $600. Consider also that the Supreme Court just ruled that the IRS can investigate your bank accounts without notification in some circumstances, including if you are a friend, family member, or associate of someone who owes the IRS.
“Experts” at the Federal Reserve and other central banks proudly broadcast the potential “financial inclusion” that could be achieved with a central bank digital currency (CBDC). In the Fed’s main CBDC paper, “Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation,” they make it clear: “Promoting financial inclusion—particularly for economically vulnerable households and communities—is a high priority for the Federal Reserve . . . a CBDC could reduce common barriers to financial inclusion.”
The term has a ring to it that signals support for progressive goals. “Inclusion” is part of the Orwellian trio of terms “diversity, inclusion, and equity,” which, as Dr. Michael Rectenwald writes, means “surveillance, punishment of the ‘privileged,’ sacrifice of national citizens to global interests, and the labeling as ‘dangerous’ and marking for (virtual) elimination those supposed members or leaders of ‘hate groups’ who oppose such measures.” The central banks’ use of “financial inclusion” involves the same reversal of meanings.
Financial Inclusion and Unbanked Households
Consider that a retail CBDC would be like having a bank account with the Federal Reserve, even if it is intermediated by another bank. There is a lot of guesswork about how a CBDC will be implemented, but some say that it will not just be like having a bank account with the Fed, but that it could be exactly that.
Either way, if a CBDC were genuinely aimed at financial inclusion, it would offer something to those who have chosen to forgo a bank account entirely. This “unbanked” population constitutes about 5.4 percent of US households according to a 2021 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) survey. The survey asked each household why they do not have a bank account, and the responses indicate that minimum balance requirements, privacy, trust, and fees are the most significant factors.
Figure 1: Unbanked households’ reasons for not having a bank account, 2021 (percent)
The critical question, then, is this: what does a CBDC offer these households that physical cash and other nonbank financial services (e.g., check cashing, money orders, prepaid cards) do not?
Privacy (or Lack Thereof)
A CBDC undermines privacy. Whatever a central bank might say about privacy protection with a CBDC can be safely dismissed. The Fed paper, for example, says, “Protecting consumer privacy is critical. Any CBDC would need to strike an appropriate balance, however, between safeguarding the privacy rights of consumers and affording the transparency necessary to deter criminal activity.” We should not conflate the characteristics of a CBDC with those of cryptocurrencies in general, which offer anonymity and pseudonymity to their users.
Could it have been a test run meant to set the stage for many more of these raids, or was it done to prepare the proletariat for accepting more invasions against gun owners? If the Montana Department of Justice, and local police, had advance notice, did the politicians know as well? The owner stated that his shop had been under surveillance and investigation for a long time, so why was this such a surprise?
Why would the government goons expose themselves in such a bold manner with a small gun store in the middle on no-where Montana? Why would they steal information not listed in their bogus warrant; when they have most all that information already? What do the politicians gaining the spotlight due to this so-called raid, have to gain from this mass exposure?
“The politicians of your country will always try to encircle you with the high walls of lies! You must know that the truth is beyond the walls and without meeting the truth you cannot meet the freedom!”
~ Mehmet Murat ildan
On June 15th, 20 armed IRS and ATF (Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco, and Firearms) agents raided, according to the owner of Highwood Creek Outfitters and others, his gun store in Great Falls, Montana. This was first and foremost, an IRS operation, with help from the ATF, both federal agencies. According to sources reporting, and what the IRS claims, this raid was meant to gain financial records, but all Form 4473s held by this store were said to have been seized, even though the supposed warrant did not mention these forms. Apparently, the IRS stole all of these forms held by Highwood Creek Outfitters during this assault, and without cause to do so; or at least this is what is being presented.
As an aside, the Great Falls Police Department, according to local TV station KRTV, confirmed that they were informed in advance of this raid, and participated by providing ‘security,’ but the Montana Department of ‘Justice,’ claimed no involvement, although an IRS spokesperson confirmed their presence at the store. This is all par for the course, as government agencies, state and federal, are birds of a feather, and lie and collude during these attacks against society.
Concerning government, absolutely no one at the local, state or federal level, including the mainstream media, can be trusted to do the right thing, protect any liberty of the individual, or tell the truth about any assault on what is falsely referred to as the ‘public.’ Nothing should be believed unless it can be factually verified, as the corruption and gross fraud connected with these entities is rampant and all-consuming.
This event has been reported nationwide, and covered by many different gun organizations, bloggers, TV stations, and others, mostly from the same angles, but what was the reason for this raid at this particular time? Why this shop, in this location, and why would the IRS be involved in leading this coup? Was it known about in advance by all, or was this really some singular plotted secret raid on one shop in a small city in Montana? Something does not make sense here, but finding the truth may not be possible, given the continuous lies by most involved.
Every federal employee with a badge and gun seems to think he’s a law unto himself.
We have recently received allegations that an Internal Revenue Service Agent provided a false name to an Ohio taxpayer as part of a deception to gain entry into the taxpayer’s home to confront her about delinquent tax filings. When the taxpayer rightfully objected to the agent’s tactics, the IRS agent insisted that he “can …go into anyone’s house at any time” as an IRS agent.”
We have seen for some time how off-the-rails the FBI has become, a danger to a free society. More and more evidence now shows it’s not just the FBI. Every federal employee with a badge and gun seems to think he’s a law unto himself. This week the spotlight is on the IRS, and the Congress has to step up and rein the agency in.
While Matt Taibbi was testifying before Congress on the administration’s extensive censoring of social media content, the IRS appeared at his door, ostensibly to question him about his taxes, but obviously to intimidate him for showing up government censorship.
Mr. Taibbi has told Mr. Jordan’s committee that an IRS agent showed up at his personal residence in New Jersey on March 9. That happens to be the same day Mr. Taibbi testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about what he learned about Twitter. The taxman left a note instructing Mr. Taibbi to call the IRS four days later. Mr. Taibbi was told in a call with the agent that both his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected owing to concerns over identity theft.
Mr. Taibbi has provided the committee with documentation showing his 2018 return had been electronically accepted, and he says the IRS never notified him or his accountants of a problem after he filed that 2018 return more than four-and-a-half years ago.
He says the IRS initially rejected his 2021 return, which he later refiled, and it was rejected again — even though Mr. Taibbi says his accountants refiled it with an IRS-provided pin number. Mr. Taibbi notes that in neither case was the issue “monetary,” and that the IRS owes him a “considerable” sum.
The bigger question is when did the IRS start to dispatch agents for surprise house calls? Typically, when the IRS challenges some part of a tax return, it sends a dunning letter. Or it might seek more information from the taxpayer or tax preparer. If the IRS wants to audit a return, it schedules a meeting at the agent’s office. It doesn’t drop by unannounced.
But that was just the beginning of a series of outrageous actions.
We have recently received allegations that an Internal Revenue Service Agent provided a false name to an Ohio taxpayer as part of a deception to gain entry into the taxpayer’s home to confront her about delinquent tax filings. When the taxpayer rightfully objected to the agent’s tactics, the IRS agent insisted that he “can …go into anyone’s house at any time” as an IRS agent.”
MCViewPoint 
