- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Josh Hawley - $1Trillion in tax losses to fraud annually
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:09 pm
13
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:10 pm to Kjnstkmn
Start looking in Washington DC
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:11 pm to Kjnstkmn
Amazing how we can uncover SO much and yet do so little
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:11 pm to Kjnstkmn
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:11 pm to Kjnstkmn
every penny the federal reserve gets is fraud and unconstitutional.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:12 pm to Kjnstkmn
that's a 10,000 dollar check to the 100,000,000 people who actually pay taxes every year
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:20 pm to tyler925
I can recommend a couple of firms on K street to start with.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:35 pm to llfshoals
Hire 10,000 investigators. They get to keep 50% of the fraud they find, prosecute, and convict.
Easy
But the politicians are huge beneficiaries of the fraud and they will not do anything about it.
Easy
But the politicians are huge beneficiaries of the fraud and they will not do anything about it.
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:39 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
Josh Hawley - $1Trillion in tax losses to fraud annually
Yep. Add it over there to the ever growing pile of outrage in the corner.
Many continue to wait patiently for something to be done about it.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:40 pm to bird35
quote:
But the politicians are huge beneficiaries of the fraud and they will not do anything about it.
Fedgov is for all intents and purposes an organized crime syndicate.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:40 pm to bird35
quote:
But the politicians are huge beneficiaries of the fraud and they will not do anything about it.
That fraud money is buying new cars, homes, jewelry, food, etc. and has driven prices up to hurt the honest man even more.
Hawley love to talk and this admission is a known. Musk claims it is as high as 1.5 trillion. I believe Musk.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:49 pm to Kjnstkmn
I asked grok how much lower income tax rates could be to recapture 1 trillion in spending:
Most recent Congressional baseline for fiscal year (FY) 2026 (which runs from October 2025 to September 2026, aligning closely with the current date).
- **Federal outlays (total spending)** in FY 2026 are projected at **$7.4 trillion** (23.3% of GDP).
- **Revenues** are projected at **$5.6 trillion** (17.5% of GDP), resulting in a deficit of about **$1.9 trillion**.
- Individual income taxes are the largest revenue source. CBO projects them at approximately **8.9% of GDP** in recent baselines (consistent across updates), which for FY 2026 equates to roughly **$2.8–2.9 trillion** (derived from total revenues of $5.6 trillion, where individual income taxes historically/compositionally make up about 50–52% of total receipts, or around half in recent years per Treasury and CBO data).
The question asks what the **median** income tax rate could be lowered to if outlays were reduced by **$1 trillion** (to ~$6.4 trillion), assuming the goal is to maintain budget balance (or hold the deficit constant) solely by cutting individual income tax rates across the board proportionally.
This is a simplified hypothetical—real tax cuts involve bracket adjustments, deductions, credits, behavioral responses, and economic effects—but we can approximate it as follows:
1. Current individual income tax revenue ˜ **$2.8 trillion** (midpoint estimate based on 50–52% share of $5.6T total revenue and CBO's ~8.9% of GDP figure).
2. To offset a $1 trillion spending cut while keeping other revenues and the deficit unchanged, individual income tax revenue could be reduced to ~**$1.8 trillion** (a reduction of ~$1 trillion, or roughly **36% lower** revenue from this source).
3. This implies an across-the-board reduction in effective individual income tax rates by about **36%** (since revenue scales roughly with rates if the tax base remains similar).
The current **effective** federal income tax rate (total individual income taxes paid divided by total adjusted gross income) is around **14.5%** on average across all taxpayers (per latest IRS data for recent years, e.g., 2022 at 14.5%). However, the **median** taxpayer (or median household) pays a lower effective rate than the average, due to the progressive structure—often in the **5–12%** range after deductions/credits, depending on filing status, dependents, and income level.
- For a median household (income ~**$83,700** in 2024, per latest Census data), the effective federal income tax rate is typically **around 8–12%** (factoring standard deduction, child credits if applicable, and bracket math under current 10%/12%/22% brackets).
- Applying a ~36% proportional cut to that effective rate range would bring the median effective rate down to roughly **5–8%**.
In short: If the entire $1 trillion spending reduction were offset by lowering individual income taxes proportionally (no changes to other revenue sources like payroll taxes, corporate taxes, or tariffs), the median effective federal income tax rate could plausibly be lowered to **around 5–8%** (from its current effective range of ~8–12% for typical median households).
This is a rough estimate—actual implementation could vary widely based on how cuts are structured (e.g., flat rate reduction vs. bracket shifts), potential revenue feedback from economic growth, or if the cut disproportionately affects higher earners. Spending cuts of that magnitude would also require major changes to entitlements, defense, or discretionary programs, which have their own economic impacts. For precise modeling, tools like CBO's revenue estimators would be needed.
Tldr=36%!!!
Most recent Congressional baseline for fiscal year (FY) 2026 (which runs from October 2025 to September 2026, aligning closely with the current date).
- **Federal outlays (total spending)** in FY 2026 are projected at **$7.4 trillion** (23.3% of GDP).
- **Revenues** are projected at **$5.6 trillion** (17.5% of GDP), resulting in a deficit of about **$1.9 trillion**.
- Individual income taxes are the largest revenue source. CBO projects them at approximately **8.9% of GDP** in recent baselines (consistent across updates), which for FY 2026 equates to roughly **$2.8–2.9 trillion** (derived from total revenues of $5.6 trillion, where individual income taxes historically/compositionally make up about 50–52% of total receipts, or around half in recent years per Treasury and CBO data).
The question asks what the **median** income tax rate could be lowered to if outlays were reduced by **$1 trillion** (to ~$6.4 trillion), assuming the goal is to maintain budget balance (or hold the deficit constant) solely by cutting individual income tax rates across the board proportionally.
This is a simplified hypothetical—real tax cuts involve bracket adjustments, deductions, credits, behavioral responses, and economic effects—but we can approximate it as follows:
1. Current individual income tax revenue ˜ **$2.8 trillion** (midpoint estimate based on 50–52% share of $5.6T total revenue and CBO's ~8.9% of GDP figure).
2. To offset a $1 trillion spending cut while keeping other revenues and the deficit unchanged, individual income tax revenue could be reduced to ~**$1.8 trillion** (a reduction of ~$1 trillion, or roughly **36% lower** revenue from this source).
3. This implies an across-the-board reduction in effective individual income tax rates by about **36%** (since revenue scales roughly with rates if the tax base remains similar).
The current **effective** federal income tax rate (total individual income taxes paid divided by total adjusted gross income) is around **14.5%** on average across all taxpayers (per latest IRS data for recent years, e.g., 2022 at 14.5%). However, the **median** taxpayer (or median household) pays a lower effective rate than the average, due to the progressive structure—often in the **5–12%** range after deductions/credits, depending on filing status, dependents, and income level.
- For a median household (income ~**$83,700** in 2024, per latest Census data), the effective federal income tax rate is typically **around 8–12%** (factoring standard deduction, child credits if applicable, and bracket math under current 10%/12%/22% brackets).
- Applying a ~36% proportional cut to that effective rate range would bring the median effective rate down to roughly **5–8%**.
In short: If the entire $1 trillion spending reduction were offset by lowering individual income taxes proportionally (no changes to other revenue sources like payroll taxes, corporate taxes, or tariffs), the median effective federal income tax rate could plausibly be lowered to **around 5–8%** (from its current effective range of ~8–12% for typical median households).
This is a rough estimate—actual implementation could vary widely based on how cuts are structured (e.g., flat rate reduction vs. bracket shifts), potential revenue feedback from economic growth, or if the cut disproportionately affects higher earners. Spending cuts of that magnitude would also require major changes to entitlements, defense, or discretionary programs, which have their own economic impacts. For precise modeling, tools like CBO's revenue estimators would be needed.
Tldr=36%!!!
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:55 pm to Kjnstkmn
They need to cut off all spending and let everyone re-apply. I’m sick of 40% of my paycheck going to the government and not getting shite out of it.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:59 pm to Kjnstkmn
There’s your deficit! Thanks politicians that could care less about our great country!!
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:02 pm to Kjnstkmn
Did he actually prove anything or was it just more mumbo jumbo nonsense like usual to get people worked up
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:09 pm to Kjnstkmn
They appropriate the funds. They are the culprits. They can trace every dime come tax time and squeeze every nickel from the working class.
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:10 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
$1Trillion in tax losses to fraud annually
How, exactly?
Isn't that more than the entire non-military discretionary budget annually?
What is the breakdown?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:for much of this board “tax money going to something I don’t want it to go to” = fraud
How, exactly?
Isn't that more than the entire non-military discretionary budget annually?
What is the breakdown?
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:01 pm to LakeSide Lovin
Yeah I think that's the rub/angle
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah I think that's the rub/angle
That's pretty dim.
I'm all for a strong national defense but think there's a shite ton of waste/fraud in the pentagon budget.
Is Hawley right, that 15% of fedgov spend is fraudulent? I don't know but I have an easier time believing 15% than I would 5%.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News