No, I think I was correct. Here’s an analysis by the budget lab at Yale.
Regarding the Inflation Reduction Act funding which Republicans have slashed and want to keep slashing:
“The Budget Lab estimates that the expansion of funding ($80 billion) for the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would have led to a net revenue increase of $637 billion over the full 10-year budget window.”
Conversely, proposed cuts from the Trump Admin would have the opposite effect. Obviously what the exact RIFs are do matter, as you said.
“We consider two different RIFs:
- First, as of February 20, 2025, the IRS has announced around 7,000 layoffs, more than 5,000 of whom reportedly worked in compliance efforts.
- Second, last week, reports suggested that the Trump Administration was pushing to slash the IRS workforce in half. We assume that these cuts come from across the agency’s functions and are on top of the initial reduction in force, such that if these changes are implemented, the IRS workforce will total around 50,000, down from around 100,000 in January.
Table 2 reports our estimates. We conclude that the aggregate effect of these two RIFs would decrease gross tax collections by about $395 billion over the course of the next decade, which includes a rough estimate of the delays to technology improvements and enhancements that would be the consequence of halving the agency’s workforce.”
So sure, it definitely matters how much we’re cutting, and whom exactly and what role they perform. But could we cut a full 1/4 of the IRS force in one fell swoop and not only not feel it, but get increased productivity per resource? Nah.
Where are you getting that from? I’m sure there’s some. My position is that any substantial cuts require a solid analysis first, should be carefully thought out, and phased in gradually so as not to cause adverse effects but also to not lay off a whole bunch of people at once and send them all to the unemployment line like a big jerk.
We just saw DOGE do the exact opposite of that and not only did they not save us much, it looks like they probably
cost us money.