3 ms·
That's not the same, is it? Suppose the number of people cheating on their taxes remains perfectly constant, but that the IRS gets less money to pursue them. T
by gjm11 8y ago
That's not the same, is it?
Suppose the number of people cheating on their taxes remains perfectly constant, but that the IRS gets less money to pursue them. Then there will be fewer tax fraud cases, but the exact same amount of tax fraud.
- losteric 8y agoIf the public knows the IRS has less funding to enforce the law, wouldn't more rich people gamble on tax evasion?
- kevin_b_er 8y agoYes. This was the real point of cutting IRS investigation funding: it enables more cheating by the rich.
- nkrisc 8y agoBut suppose in the real world the IRS has less money to pursue cases. Then it's reasonable there will be more cases of tax fraud as it will be easier to get away with it.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThat seems more likely. The long term effect may be more fraud though since people will learn that they are less likely to get caught.
- eli_gottlieb 8y agoI see no reason people wouldn't respond rationally to the extra incentive to cheat on their taxes, given that they have enough money for their tax evasion to matter in the first place.