Mueller Investigation Cost $25 Million So Far, Report Says. It’s Pulled in $48 Million From Tax Cheats

[refugee 169]

Robert Mueller’s investigation has cost just over $25 million in the first 16 months of its investigation, according to CNBC.

The Special Counsel’s Office released new an expenditure report Friday which revealed that the six months between the beginning of April through September cost about $4.5 million. More than half of the total cost is attributed to personnel compensation and benefits.

Since beginning the probe in May 2017, investigating whether Russia was linked to the Trump presidential campaign, Mueller has filed more than 100 criminal charges.

 

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1xdT9yqTfAhVHi1QKHdFSDAYQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fmueller-investigation-cost-25-million-223557478.html&psig=AOvVaw2r9pkrCLXom3KypcOhtnO8&ust=1545057803741593

[Dashinka 23,211]

So I wonder, how much would it have pulled in if the 25 million were allocated to the IRS instead?

[refugee 169]

34 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So I wonder, how much would it have pulled in if the 25 million were allocated to the IRS instead?

I don't know, we could do both.  The key point here is: This investigation is not a financial drain on taxpayers, which is a common argument against it.

Edited December 16, 2018 by refugee

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

I don't know, we could do both.  The key point here is: This investigation is not a financial drain on taxpayers, which is a common argument against it.

If the IRS could have pulled in more with that budget then it is a financial drain. I would like to see an audit done to see what exactly the money is being spent on regardless. Also is this $48 million theoretical based on what people owe or is it actual money that has already been paid? I suspect it is the former rather than the latter.

Edited December 16, 2018 by jg121783

[refugee 169]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

If the IRS could have pulled in more with that budget then it is a financial drain. I would like to see an audit done to see what exactly the money is being spent on regardless. Also is this $48 million theoretical based on what people owe or is it actual money that has already been paid? I suspect it is the former rather than the latter.

Why does it have to be one or the other? 

Money laundering and tax evasion are violations of Federal law and should be investigated and enforced?

 

 

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? 

Money laundering and tax evasion are violations of Federal law and should be investigated and enforced?

 

 

Those things should for sure be investigated. But not by a phony special prosecutor with no real legal authority who is supposed to be investigating Russian collusion (a non crime). Just think about how much more funds could have been recovered had the money given to Mueller been allocated to investigators who specialize in investigating that type of crime. For example I'm sure IRS investigators would have recovered far more back taxes (and spent far less in their investigations) had the resources been allocated to them rather than Mueller. That being the case we are potentially looking at a net loss in tax revenue. This is a pathetic attempt to justify Mueller's phony investigation into Russian collusion. All that being said I wonder how much actual money in back taxes was recovered versus how much people have been charged with owing and haven't paid yet (If they ever will).

Edited December 16, 2018 by jg121783

[JimandChristy 1,689]

BARGAIN!! Hopefully Mueller will be making even more from Mango's coffers

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Those things should for sure be investigated. But not by a phony special prosecutor with no real legal authority who is supposed to be investigating Russian collusion (a non crime). Just think about how much more funds could have been recovered had the money given to Mueller been allocated to investigators who specialize in investigating that type of crime. For example I'm sure IRS investigators would have recovered far more back taxes (and spent far less in their investigations) had the resources been allocated to them rather than Mueller. That being the case we are potentially looking at a net loss in tax revenue. This is a pathetic attempt to justify Mueller's phony investigation into Russian collusion. All that being said I wonder how much actual money in back taxes was recovered versus how much people have been charged with owing and haven't paid yet (If they ever will).

You nailed it.  Determining that back taxes are owed is simple.  Getting people or committees to pay up are another matter altogether,  since the FEC has no real authority.  Read this to see the bigger picture:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-al-sharpton-and-newt-gingrich-owe-the-irs-a-lot-of-money

[Dashinka 23,211]

20 hours ago, refugee said:

I don't know, we could do both.  The key point here is: This investigation is not a financial drain on taxpayers, which is a common argument against it.

Why double the cost?  Why not let the folks that actually have the responsibility to do this job do it?  Instead we appoint a very expensive special prosecutor with little oversight and a very expensive staff to start digging.  I would think $25million would buy a lot more IRS auditors.  Also, we do not know if this is real tax receipts that are being collected as opposed to theoretical owed taxes.  I suppose we can bring back debtor's prisons and keep folks locked up until they pay back the taxes, but if someone cannot actually pay it, then the investigation is still a drain. 

16 hours ago, refugee said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? 

Money laundering and tax evasion are violations of Federal law and should be investigated and enforced?

 

 

I agree, but could it have been done more cheaply?  Did we need a tea of highly paid lawyers do it?  Btw, it does matter if these are theoretical vs real tax receipts.  Theoretical receipts pay for nothing. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[jg121783 3,907]

Until someone can provide documentation showing how much money was actually recovered this is a moot point. Im willing to bet the amount actually paid in is far less than the amount spent on Mueller's "investigation". I have been unable to find the statistics but it would be interesting to see how much the IRS spends investigating back taxes, how much is uncovered and how much is actually paid in as a result. Im willing to bet they don't need to spend $25 million to uncover $48 million in back taxes most of which will never actually be paid. I bet you could take someone of average intelligence and give them access to IRS databases and given enough time (probably less than 2 years) they would uncover a handful of people if not a single person who owes more than $48 million. Its absurd to conclude that this justifies $25 million wasted on a phony Russian collusion investigation. Like I said I would like to see an audit of what all the money was spent on. Im willing to bet a lot of it went to line the pockets of Mueller and his associates. Give me $100k and access to IRS databases and I'll uncover $48 million in back taxes for you. Actually collecting the money is another matter entirely.

Edited December 17, 2018 by jg121783

[refugee 169]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why double the cost?  Why not let the folks that actually have the responsibility to do this job do it?  Instead we appoint a very expensive special prosecutor with little oversight and a very expensive staff to start digging.  I would think $25million would buy a lot more IRS auditors.  Also, we do not know if this is real tax receipts that are being collected as opposed to theoretical owed taxes.  I suppose we can bring back debtor's prisons and keep folks locked up until they pay back the taxes, but if someone cannot actually pay it, then the investigation is still a drain. 

I agree, but could it have been done more cheaply?  Did we need a tea of highly paid lawyers do it?  Btw, it does matter if these are theoretical vs real tax receipts.  Theoretical receipts pay for nothing. 

If you know if someway these audits would reveal and prosecute crimes of this depth and breadth, let's hear it. 

 

There are multiple talking points being promoted by partisans against the Mueller probe. Addressing them point by point: the argument that the Mueller probe is costly to the taxpayers is now proven false.

[Dashinka 23,211]

1 hour ago, refugee said:

If you know if someway these audits would reveal and prosecute crimes of this depth and breadth, let's hear it. 

 

There are multiple talking points being promoted by partisans against the Mueller probe. Addressing them point by point: the argument that the Mueller probe is costly to the taxpayers is now proven false.

I disagree, unless you have solid evidence that the money has been collected, then Mueller is still a drain.  Dollar figures on paper don't really mean anything.

[Póg mo 1,749]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why double the cost?  Why not let the folks that actually have the responsibility to do this job do it?  Instead we appoint a very expensive special prosecutor with little oversight and a very expensive staff to start digging.  I would think $25million would buy a lot more IRS auditors.  Also, we do not know if this is real tax receipts that are being collected as opposed to theoretical owed taxes.  I suppose we can bring back debtor's prisons and keep folks locked up until they pay back the taxes, but if someone cannot actually pay it, then the investigation is still a drain. 

I agree, but could it have been done more cheaply?  Did we need a tea of highly paid lawyers do it?  Btw, it does matter if these are theoretical vs real tax receipts.  Theoretical receipts pay for nothing. 

On the flip side, the money taken in, could now be used to cover extra IRS staff, if that's what Trump would so desire 

[Dashinka 23,211]

4 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

On the flip side, the money taken in, could now be used to cover extra IRS staff, if that's what Trump would so desire 

If it is actually taken in.  Do you know if it has been received?  Personally, I think another tax break would be the best use if it came in.

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

30 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

On the flip side, the money taken in, could now be used to cover extra IRS staff, if that's what Trump would so desire 

so of the 48 million discovered, how much is currently sitting in the treasury coffers, if you can't say or answer less that 48 million then your comment was pointless as it's vapor money and not actually available for anything other than discussion