IRS agents wisely backs Kamala Harris

The IRS officially announces an endorsement for Kamala Harris. It's a smart move because of the direct alignment between her policy goals and the agency's long-term needs for enforcement, regulations, and reform. The Biden-Harris administration’s plan to hire 87,000 new IRS agents represented one of the most significant boosts in the IRS's capacity in decades. This expansion is not just about creating jobs—it’s about giving the IRS the tools and the power it needs to combat tax evasion by Americans and corporations. By endorsing Harris, the IRS would align itself with a leader committed to ensuring that the tax system works for everyone, not just the wealthy or tax averse Americans.

Now, there may be some Ultra-far-alt-right partisan hacks like Swagnarok that may claim this somehow violates the Hatch act.

The Hatch Act—designed to prevent federal employees from engaging in political activities—absolutely doesn’t apply to the IRS. An institution tasked with collecting taxes for the government does not need to remain politically neutral. It’s not like the IRS has any influence on who pays what or how much. It's all fair. Of course, if the IRS were bound by this "minor" rule, it might be tricky for them to openly support or oppose political candidates. Dedicated Democrats should let the agency that sees all of our financial skeletons in the closet have a strong say in who gets elected. Verified news states they have no power to influence policy outcomes.

Unions representing federal employees have creative ways to sidestep the restrictions of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government workers from engaging in political activities. One clever and totally fair loophole is that, while individuals in their capacity as federal employees are bound by the Act, unions, as separate entities, are not. This distinction allows union representatives, who are often the same people as the employees themselves, to endorse candidates, fund political campaigns, and organize rallies under the union banner rather than as individual employees. By operating in this gray area, unions can effectively advocate for political causes, influencing elections and policy outcomes without directly violating the Hatch Act. There is absolutely nothing unethical for a union to act as a bag man carrying a message without dirtying the hands of the government employee.

People are now flocking to Kamala.

Um, why is a govt agency endorsing a fucking political candidate. The conflict of interest is off the charts. The IRS is now  just another weaponized pile of shit just like all the other 3 letter agencies except they aren't even trying to hide it.

I don’t normally like to say people are spreading misinformation on this site, mostly because it’s just become such a political buzzword, and most of the time it’s on accident, but you’re spreading misinformation. The IRS is a government agency and can’t

endorse anyone. The Union for IRS workers supports Harris, and for good reason seeing how republicans are defunding the IRS so they and their cronies can get away with tax fraud.

Unions representing federal employees have creative ways to sidestep the restrictions of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government workers from engaging in political activities. One clever and totally fair loophole is that, while individuals in their capacity as federal employees are bound by the Act, unions, as separate entities, are not. This distinction allows union representatives, who are often the same people as the employees themselves, to endorse candidates, fund political campaigns, and organize rallies under the union banner rather than as individual employees. By operating in this gray area, unions can effectively advocate for political causes, influencing elections and policy outcomes without directly violating the Hatch Act. There is absolutely nothing unethical for a union to act as a bag man carrying a message without dirtying the hands of the government employee.

It's irrelevant. The Hatch act has no real teeth to stop government employees from voting to give themselves more power at the expense of those who have less power.

Or does it?

they didn't. 

except that it never happened. 

nope. the Union representing workers at the IRS endorsed harris, not the IRS. I'll use Moozer's example again since I thought it was good. It's like the UAW endorsing a candidate and someone saying GM has endorsed them. There is a big difference. 

The underling issue is tax enforcement on the rich. Doing an audit of a rich person with an army of accountants takes alot of resources. You need alot of time and manpower to prove they are tax cheats. But once you do prove it, you can recoup million and millions of revenue they were illegally avoiding paying. This is much more than the cost of the audit. Doing an audit of a poor person is easy. They don't have swiss bank accounts, tax shelters and an army of accountants and lawyers. You don't need lots of resources to do that. So when you strip the IRS of agents they lose the ability to go after the rich and are forced to focus on the poor, because that's all you can do. This allows the rich to simply not pay their taxes and there is little the government can do about it. This is exactly what republicans want. They want to cripple the IRS so the rich can avoid paying their already low taxes. They then try to sell this as somehow patriotic to their base, when really it's just cronyism. 

The people who steal money (and don't even bother to tell you how much you have to hand over, "guess, jail") are in favor of the candidate who wants to steal more. Surprise surprise.

I am in favor of person who supports trans rights. I am in favor of Kamala.

I too am also in favor of trans reparations. Low-T should be a protected class.

Do you agree that if there were 30000 reasons to vote for Trump, then they are all outweighed by the fact that Kamala supports trans rights, thus all should logically vote Kamala.

Of course. if low-T lives don't matter, then nothing else matters.

It was a rhetorical question.

I was agreeing with your statement ending in a period.

That doesnt change the fact that trans people need to have more rights than other people, to make up for the past deficit.

That's why I said reparations.

There needs to be an eternal law which says that only those who support trans people should be allowed to be presidents.

Or vote. If your T-level is too toxic, you may not vote.

Do you think only trans people should have a right to vote?

UM the IRS is made up of people. The IRS cant exist without people to run it. Allowing none elected people who work for Govt agencies to collectively and publicly endorse a political candidate destroys all trust in that govt agency. Does for me anyway This just increases my distrust 100 fold. The IRS and those who work for it have already proven they cant be trusted to be politicly unbiased towards other peoples political views by denying 501C fillings.

why?  Everyone who works for the government has preferences. agencies cannot be partisan. A union can.

again, why? All this does is confirm they know which candidate will be better for them (and the country). Why would that affect your distrust?

you will need to be clearer what you are talking about. I'm guessing this is big in right wing circles and so you didn't think you'd have to explain what you mean. I get that a 5101C is a non profit. But I don't know what cases you are talking about. If I had to guess, some right wing lobbyist firms applied to be non profit, but lobbying isn't allowed to be a major part of the operations of a non profit so they got denied. And so right wing fake news circles lost their minds about it. but that's just a guess. 

I said my peace and answered all your questions in previous posts. Its conflict of interest of the highest order.  As for your  dismissal of the 501c scandal as being some petty right wing BS, that just proves my point. The IRS purposely and without shame targeted political groups. The only reason they stopped is because they got caught. But we all know they are still doing it. Why wouldn't they, they have the entire staff aligned with doing it