Bill Overview
Title: Prioritizing Troops Over Tax Collectors Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the rate of basic pay for a member of the uniformed services at the minimum amount of $31,200. It transfers unobligated amounts made available to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for enforcement activities to pay for the increase in basic pay. The bill also prohibits the IRS from hiring additional employees until the increase in the rate of basic pay is implemented.
Sponsors: Rep. Garcia, Mike [R-CA-25]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the uniformed services worldwide
Estimated Size: 2150000
- The bill sets a baseline salary for members of the uniformed services, which includes all branches of the military.
- According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there are over 1.3 million active duty service members and over 811,000 National Guard and Reserve members. This totals over 2.1 million uniformed service members in the U.S.
- Globally, the number of people in all uniformed services (including the U.S.) can increase the target population further.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects uniformed service members by setting a minimum salary, potentially improving financial security and wellbeing for those below the new threshold.
- The budget limit restricts the IRS from hiring more employees till the policy implementation is complete, which could affect IRS operations but is secondary in impact.
- The wellbeing measure reflects subjective happiness and life satisfaction, hence setting a minimum pay might enhance service members' self-reported wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Army Specialist (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This pay raise is much needed as it's hard to make ends meet sometimes.
- Our work is challenging, and this new pay scale shows the country values our service.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Marine Sergeant (San Diego, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit helps with supporting my kids, and this increase is a step in the right direction.
- The hold on IRS hiring is concerning, but the focus on troops is appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IRS Analyst (Fairfax, VA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about IRS resources, but troops need fair pay.
- Hoping the policy doesn't lead to layoffs at IRS.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Navy Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like overdue recognition of our contributions.
- It's good to see a financial acknowledgment of the sacrifices made.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Navy Technician (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can finally pay off my student loans faster with this pay raise.
- Delay in IRS hiring doesn't concern me much compared to the benefits we are getting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
IRS Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing act — understand why pay is vital for troops, but IRS needs staffing too.
- Concerned about workload and effectiveness with hiring freeze.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Army Recruit (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This pay increase makes joining the service more encouraging.
- I feel more secure starting my career with this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Coast Guard Petty Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps plan for my parent's healthcare needs.
- It's reassuring to see the government prioritize our salaries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Air Force Airman (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive shift; I feel it makes my financial situation more sound.
- The pay increment will ease my student debt plan.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
National Guard Trooper (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit helps when supporting a family, and this new pay rate is a great relief.
- Glad to see the treasury focusing on troops, though IRS staffing is concerning for my tax returns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $9800000000 (Low: $9200000000, High: $10500000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The reallocation of funds from the IRS enforcement may lead to decreases in future tax revenues.
- The act mandates financial changes within a limited budget reallocation scope, heavily depending on existing IRS resources.
- Inflationary pressures from increased spending by service members may not be significant but could contribute to minor shifts in consumer demand.