Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to a report in the Washington Post, the goal of the program was to collect $1.4 billion from deadbeats who owed the IRS $25,000 or less. If the private debt collectors met the target they would be entitled to keep $330 million. Even though the private sector is better at an assigned task than the public sector, the debt collectors missed their goals. Instead of collecting $1.4 billion, the assigned amount, they collected only $49 million thus missing the goal by $900,551,000. Commenting on the program in a statement on the floor of the Senate, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland reminded his colleagues that Nina Olson had earlier informed his colleagues that if the IRS had spent the $7.65 million it cost to implement the private debt collection on an automated collection system, it would have generated generate $153 million. His Republican colleague in the House, Jim Ramstead, was not daunted by the failure of the program. He said: “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.” How a program that missed its goal by almost $1 billion is considered working is better explained by a Congressional Republican than by me. In 2008 Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress and in 2009 tax collection was returned to the IRS. That was shortly before Congress began cutting the IRS funding.

In fiscal year 2010 the IRS received $12.15 billion in funding, $4.5 million less than the $12.6 billion it had requested. The reduced amount was insisted on by Republicans even though the Treasury Secretary and the IRS commission had pointed out to Congress that increased funding for the IRS pays for itself. According to the Treasury Secretary at the time: “Every dollar invested in IRS yields nearly five dollars in increased revenue from non-compliant taxpayers.” The Republican were unpersuaded then and remain so now. In the 2015 budget agreed to by the House and Senate in December 2014, the IRS will get $10.9 billion, a decrease of 10% since 2010. The 2015 budget for the IRS is about the same as what it was in 1998 when 30 million fewer returns were being filed by taxpayers. Nina E. Olson, leader of the Taxpayer Advocate Service anticipates that in 2015 the IRS will only be able to answer 43 percent of the 110 million calls it expects to receive. Those lucky enough to get through will be on hold for 30 minutes. If the wait is any longer than that the taxpayer will be treated to what is described as a “courtesy disconnect.” The caller is removed from the cue waiting to speak to a representative and disconnected. The caller can, of course, call back in order to be placed back in the cue. In 2013, 61 percent of calls received were answered and the wait time was 18 minutes.

According to the Taxpayer Advocate Service’s 2013 Annual Report to Congress, the IRS has almost 400 walk-in sites. Ten years ago it answered more than 1.4 million tax-law questions at those locations. Because of the most recent cuts some of those sites may close and those remaining open will only answer “basic” questions during tax season and none after April 15th even if a taxpayer has not yet filed. The agency will no longer prepare returns for low income, elderly and disabled taxpayers. Its workforce was reduced from 95,000 full-time employees in FY 2010 to 87,000 in FY 2013 as a result of earlier cuts and it is anticipated that in 2015 another 3000 positions will be eliminated.

CID1990 wrote:You're talking about privatization of a government function- and one that falls appropriately into the realm of government responsibility.

In this case, what holds things up is the litigation of the arrearages- something neither government nor the private sector can control without some kind of legislation. So your example is not a very good one.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You're talking about privatization of a government function- and one that falls appropriately into the realm of government responsibility.

In this case, what holds things up is the litigation of the arrearages- something neither government nor the private sector can control without some kind of legislation. So your example is not a very good one.

If they both have to deal with it and the contractor agreed to the terms they thought the goal could be met. Then there's the issue of defunding.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You're talking about privatization of a government function- and one that falls appropriately into the realm of government responsibility.

In this case, what holds things up is the litigation of the arrearages- something neither government nor the private sector can control without some kind of legislation. So your example is not a very good one.

If they both have to deal with it and the contractor agreed to the terms they thought the goal could be met. Then there's the issue of defunding.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
If they both have to deal with it and the contractor agreed to the terms they thought the goal could be met. Then there's the issue of defunding.

You are incorrect and your feeble attempt at emulating Capn is a fail.

kalm wrote:Instead of collecting $1.4 billion, the assigned amount, they collected only $49 million thus missing the goal by $900,551,000.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:Instead of collecting $1.4 billion, the assigned amount, they collected only $49 million thus missing the goal by $900,551,000.

????

CAA Flagship wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
????

You beat me to it.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You are incorrect and your feeble attempt at emulating Capn is a fail.

The WaPo is wrong too...

I appreciated Baldy's post. But let's not pretend privatization isn't a powerful meme.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
The WaPo is wrong too...

I appreciated Baldy's post. But let's not pretend privatization isn't a powerful meme.

It IS, but not in this poor example. If you're for big government, then ANY example where privatization does not work is red meat.

Here's a news flash: privatization does not work in some cases. This is one of them, because the free market is not involved except in the bid for the job itself. Even you should be able to see that.