Proof the right wing have marxism paranoia.

lol

Sure... that's why Biden and her, hired 87,000 new IRS agents... LOL

You need help.

As for your mythical 87,000 IRS agents? The truth is, that number refers to PLANNED HIRES over a decade to replace retiring staff and modernize an outdated system. Not that you'd know anything about it. Just what your echo chamber told you.

Since that's most likely, let me break this down for you... When it comes to auditing a millionaire, corporation, or billionaire, versus a middle-class person, auditing the wealthy requires far more expertise, time, and yes - staff. Millionaires have complex financial portfolios, offshore accounts, and armies of lawyers, while middle-class folks generally just have W-2s and a couple of deductions. So no, they’re not hiring a battalion to snoop through your Venmo. They’re trying to catch the big fish with the resources to ACTUALLY dodge taxes.

I get it - tax stuff can be confusing, and it's easy to fall for the scary-sounding numbers - which you're prone to do, considering you cited Charlie Kirk, earlier... But imagining this army of IRS agents coming after regular folks is like thinking a SWAT team is needed to check your grocery receipts.

Because since 2020 federal employees haven't been worth a shit and they need more of them to do half the work they did before COVID.

So you're saying we need more federal employees to get the job done? Glad to see you're in favor of expanding government services!

Not quite.

I assume you're going to double down on your hasty generalization because of a few bad apples? Or are you going to use your brain.

Wow, that's oddly specific.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. You say the entire system's broken because workers simply decide not to care? You should offer classes for big business execs! You’ve cracked the code - forget about funding, management, or resources. Clearly, every issue is solved by simply blaming employees. I suppose next you'll suggest fixing airplanes by telling the pilots to "just fly better." Truly, a masterclass in problem-solving. What are you going to do about it, sit back and keep pushing out these deep intellectual breakthroughs? lmao

<You say the entire system's broken because workers simply decide not to care?> Pretty much. They do the minimum they can get away with, minus a few exceptions, and when they promote, it's because they are in tight with someone or slept their way there.

"Management" lol.

funding = oversight = people
management = people
resources = allocated by people
Add the handpicked hires of Human Resources (Personnel)

And all these "people" do all things well, all the time, and never play officer politics and never act in their own selfish interests. Let alone engage in grift.

This concept makes you dizzy. I am so sorry for your . . .naivety.

normally I just come to politics to just browse the memes to laugh at the stupid memes they make. Now that they actually believe this stuff... youre proving that to me, and the way you weave around them is just ... beyond satisfying! you have more tenacity than me lol

<Pretty much. They do the minimum they can get away with, minus a few exceptions, and when they promote, it's because they are in tight with someone or slept their way there.>

I'm sorry you've had that experience. Consider this:

We need to address worker disengagement and inefficiency, organizations need to invest in better management practices, ensure adequate resources, and create a workplace culture that makes employees feel valued. Clear systems of accountability and oversight, along with involving workers in decision-making, can help keep employees motivated and productive. Furthermore, fair hiring and promotion practices should be prioritized, ensuring that the right people are aligned with the company’s values and goals. (Speaking broadly here) Tackling these issues structurally can create a more engaged and effective workforce.

Which brings us to the point of the meme and what Kamala Harris is seeking to do that Republicans who are against Unions are about... Addressing these issues will require financial investment. Improving management, providing resources, building a positive workplace culture, and establishing fair accountability measures all come with costs. Hiring and retaining the right people through improved HR practices may also require additional funding. However, these expenses are investments in long-term benefits such as increased productivity, higher employee engagement, and lower turnover, which ultimately make the organization more successful and sustainable.

Thinkers like Karl Marx and David Graeber have long predicted this type of worker disengagement in capitalist systems. Marx’s theory of alienation explained that workers become detached from their labor and its results because they are treated as tools in a system that prioritizes profit over their well-being. This leads to a loss of motivation and purpose. Similarly, Graeber’s concept of "bullshit jobs" shows how meaningless work, created by the modern capitalist economy, causes workers to feel that their contributions lack value, leading to further disengagement and inefficiency.

Mentioning Karl Marx doesn’t mean I’m a Marxist. I support capitalism, but I can still acknowledge flaws that Marx pointed out. Problem is, any attempt to address those issues faces intense pushback, especially from Republicans, because it threatens corporate profits, and by extension, their own pockets.

You may or may not be familiar with Max Weber and his concept of the Iron Cage. It's my opinion, as little as it's worth, that government inertia is the result of people working within bureaucracies as "cogs" in the machine that push back with passive-aggression to try to assert some kind of control in their lives.

If I truly thought and believed that more money would be the solution to the inefficiency, waste, and overreach of the government I would be even leftier than the Kammy-Waltz ticket. But I do not. And will never.

So, In response to your last reply (Sorry that I forgot to reply...)

"2. ... Yes, 'middle class tax cuts' aren't really "Marxist". But we can't say the same for the rest of her 'ideas' given her background."

So, we're the thought police now? I was under the impression that conservatives don't like it when people label others based on their ideas and policies. Such as Trump, who has had dinner with a known neo-nazi, reportedly wished his generals were more like Hitler's, and has expressed the same rhetoric (ideas) as Hitler. Given this logic you employ with Harris, are you saying you'd embrace Hitler over Marx?

(Continued due to lack of reply space)

You're assuming that funding, management, oversight, and resources can all be reduced to just "people" doing their jobs perfectly. (And you claim that *I'm* naive.) Organizations are complex, and people - whether they're in management, HR, or elsewhere - are influenced by their own biases, politics, and self-interests. Some, of course, are not. Anyway, this can lead to mistakes, inefficiencies, and even unethical actions. Thinking that the right people in the right roles will *always* make everything work perfectly ignores these human flaws and oversimplifies the real issues that lead to dysfunction.

This line of thinking also suggests a zero-sum view of organizational problems: either the workers are at fault, or the system is. But in reality, both individual actions and systemic factors like management, funding, and oversight can play a role. Just because some workers don’t do their jobs well doesn’t mean the entire system is broken. Using that logic, if one manager acts badly, we'd have to say all managers are corrupt, or if one funding decision goes wrong, the whole financial system must be flawed. This kind of thinking turns a small problem into a total system failure, ignoring that organizations can adjust, improve, and correct mistakes. It must suck being you.

Your bias becomes even clearer when we look at something like the U.S. Constitution. If we blamed every flaw in the government solely on individual lawmakers or officials, we'd miss how the system - checks and balances, separation of powers - shapes the outcomes. (Though granted, Trump wants to do away with such separation of powers.) Just as individual politicians make mistakes, the structure of government can help mitigate or worsen those errors. Blaming one person for the failure of an entire system oversimplifies things, whether in politics or business. Like the Constitution, organizations should allow for correction and improvement instead of assuming one group holds all the responsibility.

Your logic is horrendously flawed, laced with an extreme level of attribution bias. (More specific, fundamental attribution error.) Did you even attend school? I'd bet not, right wing is against public schooling now, too.

Well the plot does thicken. I don't think either one of us knows each of us at all, do we? Tell me what the "real" issues are that lead to dysfunction. You make many assumptions about me that may or may not be true. I'll tip my cards to you a little: I speak of what I have seen first-hand in over 20 years at the same j-o-b.

-- continued Since

Under Obama, policies were implemented to address the Great Recession and gradually reduce the deficit. The 2009 stimulus package injected money into the economy to help it recover. While the deficit was high at first due to stimulus spending and lower revenues, it decreased each year as the economy improved. By 2016, the deficit had fallen to $585 billion from its peak of $1.4 trillion in 2009, showing fiscal improvement along with economic growth.

Republican administrations often enacted tax cuts and increased spending, which led to rising deficits. President Reagan's administration cut taxes significantly and increased defense spending. This stimulated economic growth but also tripled the national debt from about $998 billion to $2.6 trillion. Under President George W. Bush, tax cuts and military spending led to budget deficits after a period of surpluses, with the deficit reaching $458 billion by 2008.

During Trump's term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced corporate and individual tax rates. While the economy had low unemployment and moderate growth before the COVID-19 pandemic, deficits increased because of the tax cuts and higher spending. By 2019, the deficit had grown to nearly $1 trillion, and it expanded further in 2020 due to emergency spending during the pandemic.

With Biden, he's taken to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. He signed the American Rescue Plan Act, which provided economic stimulus and relief to individuals, businesses, and local governments. This has contributed to the recovery from the pandemic-induced recession, with job growth and increased economic activity. However, the substantial relief spending has led to continued high federal deficits, and the future impact on the deficit remains to be seen.

--

This is all just to say (not arguing about who did what) that the economy is putting a heavy strain on everyone - we're all feeling it. It's in the headlines, people want better from their employers, and their employers aren't budging. Whether it's because of the lack of money, or simple greed, it just isn't happening. Rest assured, if we stop collecting taxes, this country falls. The top 10% pay 70% of this country's taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of this country's taxes (they're inclusive of the previously mentioned 10%).

Having enforcement agencies well staffed to make sure that those individuals pay their share is ... I don't have words for it. Beyond important. --more(again)

-- (continued... again) Now, I'll concede that the wealthy does pay more in percentage than the middle class. The problem though, is the increasing wage gap. A guy who makes 1.5 million a year still has to pay about 450k in taxes. Whereas someone in the middle class ~50k still has to pay 6k. The cut for the middle class is smaller in every way. Note though, that they have less to work with in an economy where executives are trying to frantically retain their profits margins.

So, now we have inflation, people raising prices. We have people price gouging where they really don't need to. We have AI and other automation (robotics) requiring more skilled technicians which requires expensive schooling which requires loans and grants. Students get burned out easily and drop out because of the demands of this economy.

I do believe there's such a thing as too much wealth. But I don't believe that wealth shouldn't exist. Do I need to describe how this all fits into late-stage capitalism? I mean, I think we can agree - whatever form of capitalism we're currently employing, is just not working. It's breaking exactly as late-stage capitalism is described. My question is, what's the body count going to be from a paralyzed government with one side focusing on culture war and the other focusing on economic inequity/inequality?

And to end on this note, my meme that I originally posted up there? About Harris? Those 87,000 IRS agents aren't all being hired at once. They're there to make sure the system keeps working. I assume this is the minimum to get it functioning the way we like. I also think that a way to improve our tax system would be to divide our population into tax brackets by due dates. Start with the lowest earners, and work your way up, you'll get much more done that way. You'll start seeing returns when you hire more people (if they're not already doing it this way). Divide the due dates by economic class into each quarter.

Also, f**k anything that's offshore.

To answer you question in part, then, f**k taxing unrealized gains, because if you have a quarter of a brain, they are UNREALIZED until the assets are actually sold. "They want to screw the "big guy" but what about everyone else that isn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Getting back to the 'human' factor in the IRS: So you get your fairy tale ending, the IRS hires 100,000 new agents, all of them idealistic ready to make their difference, hot and eager to 'prove' themselves, and make their contribution to making everyone paying their fare share. They aren't supposed to show any impartiality between the rich and the poor, as far as tax evasion. And WHO is the low hanging fruit? Not the Bezos, not the Gates' , not the Buffets, certainly not the wealthy politically connected of the Dems (or Republicans). It's the Smiths, the Joneses, the Greens, etc. etc. etc. "I didn't get Al Pachino (Scar Face) for tax evasion but I got this stupid schmuck for not paying 50 grand because his dad left him some money in an inherited IRA and he didn't understand about 'minimum required distributions' and the tax penalties that result from non-compliance!" Booo-ya for meeeeee!!!!! [f**ker f**k you IRS].
This isn't me but it does happen.

You're right about the low-hanging fruit often being the target in these cases. The wealthy have the resources to hire teams of lawyers and accountants to exploit loopholes, while the average person may not even be aware of the complexities in tax laws, leading to mistakes. But here's the issue: without proper enforcement, those at the top can dodge their fair share, and the burden falls harder on the rest of us. Hiring more agents isn't about punishing regular folks, it's about making sure everyone pays what they owe, including those who use their wealth to skirt the system. Sure, taxing unrealized gains may sound unfair, but we should be focused on closing loopholes and enforcing compliance in a way that holds everyone accountable, not just the ones who can't afford to fight back. And once again, these agents aren't all being hired at once, they're the total agents over the next (decade?) to be hired to replace people who're being retired and to bolster, (as you said) a system overburdened with work - so much so that it's difficult to get a phone conversation.

So... let's talk about pre-pandemic numbers and what's been going on (read below)

<I'm seeing consistently that good pay is the issue, in a society where the wealth gap is increasing. >

Agreed. Public sector jobs will always bleed the best ones out to the private sector, because better pay if not benefits.

< the [ x ] workforce . . .aging, with a significant number of employees nearing retirement. . . .a loss of institutional knowledge and worsening . . shortage.>

I see a couple of things here:
1.Turn-over, because employees see current job as a stepping stone to getting a better paying job in the private sector.

2. Said long-term employees nearing retirement are not actively training their would-be replacements, because, They Don't Want To Be Replaced Before They Can Actually Retire.
But getting back the original meme: Yes, 'middle class tax cuts' aren't really "Marxist". But we can't say the same for the rest of her 'ideas' given her background.

Before the pandemic, the IRS was already experiencing a steady demand for auditors and agents. This demand stemmed from the need to enforce tax laws and ensure compliance, especially among higher-income individuals and large corporations. However, due to budget cuts starting in the early 2010s (Thanks, Obama.), the IRS's capacity to conduct audits and pursue tax evasion had been reduced, leading to a growing tax gap. Despite these challenges, the demand for auditors remained consistent, as the complexity of tax laws increased.

On the supply side, the IRS faced competition from the private sector, which offered more lucrative salaries and better benefits for accountants and tax professionals. (What I was talking about earlier with what Karl Marx said was going to happen.) This made it difficult for the IRS to attract and retain qualified workers (because they're unmotivated - seems like a cause and effect relationship). Additionally, becoming an IRS auditor required specialized education, certifications, and knowledge of tax law, further limiting the pool of candidates available to fill these roles (They understand investments, so naturally they'd want to go for who provides better benefits. I do not think this is by accident.) Many professionals opted for private-sector jobs where the pay was more attractive, leading to a constrained supply of skilled workers.

At the same time, the IRS workforce was aging, with a significant number of employees nearing retirement. This contributed to a loss of institutional knowledge and worsened the supply shortage. While the demand for skilled workers grew, the IRS struggled to maintain an adequate supply of auditors to meet its needs, creating a gap that hindered tax enforcement efforts even before the pandemic hit. The pandemic only exacerbated the issue.

I'm seeing consistently that good pay is the issue, in a society where the wealth gap is increasing. Such is an example where Zampala, CEO of Respawn (Jedi: Fallen Order) said that paying 700$ is not that bad (Context: when comparing a computer of equal power) but the issue here is the disconnect from middle class or lower to someone who's a CEO who has the audacity to say that 700$ isn't that bad. Gonna show my age and say when I was a teenager, you could get an AR-15 for 500$. An XBOX console was 200$. A PS3 was 300$ IIRC. I'm seeing right now that they [AR-15s] run 800-1500. It isn't really relevant, but I'm just looking at this and just kinda... overwhelmed.

In my field of experience, doing the minimum just doesn't cut it. People see the value of working together and giving 110% to the job. The lowest people on our totem pole (high school education) make 33$/hr. The work is hard, the work is demanding, and it's dangerous. The dangers are working with people - they're unpredictable and will go out of their way to hurt you. If I did the bare minimum of my job, I would just sit at my desk all day... reading texts/emails about my job, watching cameras. But that's not what I do. I'm going out there, I'm involved in restraints, I debrief the people I work with. We *do* have people in our field who give the minimum. They don't last long.

You'd be right in some capacity that people who you dump money into will always do the bare minimum amount of work. I really don't think that with the benefits our company offers and the pay that we offer is sufficient to "keep the workers happy" to have them value their job. It's my speculation that the economy, such as it is, is spiraling out of control and it's getting harder to recover from with each term that a Republican takes office.

Since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981 both Democratic and Republican leaders have made policies that affected the U.S. economy and the national deficit. Looking at how these policies influenced economic growth and the deficit helps us see which ones were effective. Generally, Democratic administrations have been better at improving the economy while reducing the deficit.

During President Bill Clinton's time in office, steps were taken to boost the economy and lower the deficit. Clinton signed a law in 1993 that raised taxes on the wealthy and cut certain government spending. The 90s experienced strong economic growth, low unemployment, and low inflation, partly because of technological advancements. These factors turned budget deficits into surpluses. By '98, the federal budget had a surplus of $69bn, which grew to $236bn by 2000 - the largest in U.S. history at that time.

-- more

deflect some more...

Deflecting? I just pointed out that if federal employees aren't getting the job done, perhaps investing more in them is the solution. But, hey I'm glad we're on the same page.

Nice... keep up the good work...

Promises, Promises. She also promised to be the border Czar for Biden. But now they are talking of fixing that by more lies.

I'm not surprised that you label proposed solutions as "more lies" without any evidence - sounds like your chickens before they hatch. Never mind that it's quite the hasty generalization. Border issues have challenged every administration for decades, so singling out Harris ignores that historical reality. But as I've said before, the right wing (especially americanviking) has made ignoring context an artform.