11 ms·

There are four differences. First, the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a

by lisper 6y ago

There are four differences. First, the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a billionaire has much better odds of not getting caught. Second, billionaires have access to better layers, accountants, publicists and politicians to give them negotiating leverage if they do get caught. Third, the payoff for a billionaire successfully cheating on their taxes is much higher than for a non-billionaire. And finally, even if a billionaire does get caught and pays all their back-taxes with penalties, they will still most likely be a billionaire and be able to sustain a pretty posh lifestyle. So the expected value of the tax-cheating lottery is much higher for a billionaire than a normal person.

majormajor 6y ago
> Third, the payoff for a billionaire successfully cheating on their taxes is much higher than for a non-billionaire. And finally, even if a billionaire does get caught and pays all their back-taxes with penalties, they will still most likely be a billionaire and be able to sustain a pretty posh lifestyle. This is the weird part to me. I don't think the marginal payoff is higher for a billionaire, other than in ego or ideological or other less-rational terms. Someone making 50K who scams an extra 2K out of their taxes has gotten themselves a pretty big boost to their disposable income. While a billionaire already has millions to play with... I would support higher and harsher penalties for larger absolute amounts of tax fraud, though, because you're depriving your fellow citizens of more if you're keeping larger $$ amounts.
- lisper 6y ago
  Billionaires think differently about money than non-billionaires. Ordinary people use money to exercise control over their own lives. Billionaires use money to exercise control over other people's lives, and when that is your goal, a few extra billion dollars means a few extra tens of thousands of people you can put on payroll to do your bidding, whatever that might happen to be. It lets you do things like run for president or go into space. It's not my cup of tea, but it's not fair to call it "irrational". Some people just want different things.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    It might be rational to want those things. But I think I would argue that people largely shouldn't be able to have them.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Yeah, it's not intellectually honest to argue "a billionaire committing a billion-dollar tax fraud has a lot to gain, because a billion dollars is a lot of money, but a billionaire getting fined a billion dollars is nothing to him, because diminishing marginal utility."
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    How is it dishonest? They have a lot to gain financially, and the penalty for doing so (although steep) is not significant enough to have a material impact on the person committing the fraud. That seems like the exact moral hazard that creates this situation. For a poor person, the same situation is likely life-altering in either case.
    - jeddy3 6y ago
      > How is it dishonest? Either a billion dollars is a lot, or it is not.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        It's clearly both. The behavior of the billionaires makes that clear. Billions of dollars is enough incentive to commit tax fraud, and (hundreds of) millions of dollars in fines has not been enough to disincentive tax fraud.
      - treis 6y ago
        $1,000 to you is (probably) not a lot. For someone in a third world shithole it's several years to a life time of earnings. Perspective matters when determining if something is "a lot" or not.
        jeddy3 6y ago
        Well, yeah, obviously. But using in the same sentence as both, depending on the point you're trying to prove, is a little dishonest. As MrPatan pointed out in a sibling comment, the sentence is about the same person.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >This is the weird part to me. I don't think the marginal payoff is higher for a billionaire, other than in ego or ideological or other less-rational terms. It is higher in a very real and measurable way: it's way more money. Doesn't have to higher as a "marginal payoff". (Besides that would imply that if the billionaire didn't get any real benefit or pleasure from the non-taxed money, they should face no penalty).
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > Someone making 50K who scams an extra 2K out of their taxes has gotten themselves a pretty big boost to their disposable income. another way to think of this is in the difference of relationship to money between a billionaire and a in comparison poor person. give 2K to the avg Joe/Jane they'll circulate it back into the market by purchasing while the billionaire sees themself as a "steward of their fortune" and who would keep in their accounts. (also the reason why trickle-down Reaganomics doesn't work). Also to a billionaire there is a high chance justifying tax-avoidance (and evasion) is easier since they anyway do it using multinational corporations. And obvs. it's more work to go after big cases where the fight is about proofing overstepping the line between avoidance/evasion while with poor people the case is usually about just evasion. I'll continue to recommend this here whenever the topic comes up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_and_the_Men_Who_Stole_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
  - briffle 6y ago
    To a person dealing with the IRS over millions, a whole team of lawyers at $1k/hour each is a drop in the bucket. to a person who cheated uncle sam of $2k, its cheaper to settle (even with penalties) than to hire a single lawyer to represent them. That is why the IRS loves going after the little guys, they don't fight back.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      They often don’t fight back because it’s often a fairly clear-cut matter where the taxpayer is in the wrong and both sides just move to resolution.
    - golf1052 6y ago
      Loves is a strong word. I think it makes more sense to say that the IRS doesn't have the budget or resources to go after the big players. Yes, people cheating only $2k probably won't pay for a lawyer but from the IRS side it's just much simpler to analyze and prove that person is in the wrong. See this article from ProPublica https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted
- bayesianbot 6y ago
  To the latter part of top post, for a billionaire utility value and expected value are equal as if he gains or loses a few million it doesn't matter. For smaller player they can be completely different, yes a few thousand can be a good income gain, but getting caught can mean they get completely ruined. So if expected value of tax cheating in vacuum is - lets imagine - 20% of the amount of taxes cheated, billionaire should cheat on taxes in every situation, as they simply gain 20% on average. Smaller player shouldn't, as even though their expected value is the same, their utility value can be completely different as they might take a risk of ruining their business and losing future income and hugely lowering their quality of life. edit: and also for small amounts the way down is much harsher on the utility value, so being a favorite to gain 10k might not be worth it, if the possible -15k means your lifestyle suffers.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    I think you're leaving out enforcement costs. If you're little and scamming a few $k here and there, the ROI (Return on Investigation) for the IRS to go after you is tiny. It's probably not worth assigning an investigator. If you're HUGE and scamming billions, the ROI is there but you also have the capabilities to defend yourself, obfuscate things, etc so it's unlikely they can destroy you. Therefore, it's not one investigator but a team with forensic accountants, potentially informants, etc. For everyone else, the danger is in the middle. Where you have enough that you can lose a life-destroying amount but you don't have the means to protect yourself. That is a great target for investigators. In short, as you gain more, be careful and have a good accountant who follows the rules to the best of their ability.. until you can make the rules. Oh crap.
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
> the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) I'm not sure how this is relevant. As of October 2020, there were 614 billionaires in the US[1]. Of those 614 people, only a few of them are likely breaking any sort of tax law (billionaires have a lot of money to make sure they take advantage of loopholes, without breaking the law). So there isn't some big list of billionaires that the IRS could be going after but is choosing not to. So the question is, are there known billionaire tax evaders that aren't getting prosecuted? That should be the only question that matters. Using statistics in this case would likely lead to more injustice than less, as the only way you could get billionaire vs non-billionaire prosecutions rates to align is by prosecuting billionaires that aren't breaking the law. (edit: unless there are many billionaire tax evaders that are just getting away with it, of course. I don't know if that's the case or not) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  the typical billionaire can easily go to another country (and immediately get a passport if they wish). it helps looking at this not just from an US/Western pov but how Chinese, Russian, African billionaires are quickly feeling at home in places like US[1], UK, Switzerland. There is a lot more money to be made (and washed) in places like Africa / Asia that requires a "safe haven" [1] the US today is one of the biggest tax-havens in the world (source: "Treasure Island") and the OECD crackdown on the usual suspects (Cayman, Channel Islands, ...) never hurt anyone since the US really just wanted a slice of the off-shore pie (which anyway exists whether with or without the US as a tax-haven).
Natsu 6y ago
But won't the billionaire be highly unlikely to have any hand in doing their own taxes? I'd imagine that you'd have someone doing that for you and have no idea of the details. I'm significantly poorer than the billionaires, but the only thing I know about taxes is what forms I need to gather and mail to my tax guy.
- lisper 6y ago
  Billionaires will typically give an indication to the people they hire to prepare their taxes how hard s/he wants them to lean on the rules.
glitchc 6y ago
It should be taken into consideration that it's much harder to prove that the billionaire actually cheated vs. a regular Joe, who may simply have lied on his taxes. The IRS, in the vein of all prosecutors, will not prosecute unless they can make a strong enough case to make a conviction highly probable.
modeless 6y ago
> even if a billionaire does get caught and pays all their back-taxes with penalties, they will still most likely be a billionaire and be able to sustain a pretty posh lifestyle By that logic, if they just pay their taxes it won't affect their lifestyle either, so their incentive to cheat is also lower. > the payoff for a billionaire successfully cheating on their taxes is much higher than for a non-billionaire In absolute terms, sure. And in absolute terms the penalties are much bigger too. > the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a billionaire has much better odds of not getting caught Your conclusion doesn't follow from your evidence. It's possible that low income people are cheating taxes at a higher rate than billionaires. I really don't have a lot of trouble believing this; small tax fraud is widespread, even accepted by a lot of people. > billionaires have access to better layers, accountants, publicists and politicians to give them negotiating leverage if they do get caught I don't see any evidence that this guy got a better deal than he should have. The point of tax enforcement is not to punish billionaires for being billionaires. The point of tax enforcement is to ensure taxes are collected. If you think taxes are too low, or just want to punish billionaires more harshly because they're billionaires, then Congress is the place that has to be changed.
- onethought 6y ago
  I definitely think the wealthy should be held to a higher standard than the poor. Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. There is evidence he worked out a deal with the removal of deductions regarding his charity... why did they remove those deductions? If he’s entitled to them... clearly it was done as a negotiating piece. How many average Joe’s have 180 million in deductions to negotiate with?
  - vmception 6y ago
    > why did they remove those deductions? yes, it is 3-pronged a) easy to identify b) liquidity, easy to use for payment c) kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback c might sound annoying, but the revenue service has the primary goal of revenue. replenishing the treasury so it can make its own interest payments. you might say, "well take that and still jail the people". okay, I guess. it could have happened here. all parties in this case acknowledge that a court case would not have any guaranteed results, specifically because of your second sentence: > Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. The justification is actually broader. Like, sure if the billionaire lacks a justification for paying yes, but the reality is that the government doesn't know WHICH justification the billionaire is using. That's the game. They can be totally blindsided. And then there's the jury, yeah sure a jury with populist sentiment against billionaires combined with a jury judging a black man, doesn't sound great for the defendant but that overlooks everything that was attempted. The man tried to use the amnesty program that the US government set up, and the government denied him! The man already snitched for the government on his first investor who set him up for life! The man tried filing amended tax returns. The jury might actually take a dim view on the state for that, I could totally see a hung jury. And then his lawyers can totally drop some legal opinions they made years ago that showed a justification the government didn't expect at all, shifting liability away from the defendant.
WalterBright 6y ago
> First, the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a billionaire has much better odds of not getting caught. That assumes they cheat at the same rate.
- MegaButts 6y ago
  Is there any reason to believe that billionaires don't cheat more? I don't think billionaires are rich because they're more talented. I think they're rich because they're more opportunistic and, quite frankly, shittier human beings.
  - hnburnsy 6y ago
    From the IRS... 'IRS estimates that between 21 percent to 26 percent of EITC claims are paid in error. Some of the errors are unintentional caused by the complexity of the law, but some of the claims are intentional disregard of the law'
    - MegaButts 6y ago
      That statistic is irrelevant since it doesn't distinguish between rich and poor. But the IRS has publicly admitted to not pursuing rich people because "it's too hard." https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich
      - hnburnsy 6y ago
        Income audit rates... Income Range/Percent Examined 2015 1-$25,0000/.66 … $10,000,000+/8.16 "The typical audits for higher-income taxpayers involve at least three different tax years, often include related entities, and routinely take years to resolve. The highest income taxpayers face the most significant chance of an examination, and they face the most highly trained and experienced IRS agents and teams utilizing our most sophisticated tools and techniques." https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/irs-audit-rates-significantly-increase-as-income-rises https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/irs-audit-rates-significantly-...
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
The IRS has nice little boxes that the low income people can fill in that are blatantly obvious when fraudulent. It's not the IRS's fault that people think they can fudge some number and it not instantly get flagged on entry into the computer.
hnburnsy 6y ago
The IRS audits most poor earners because of rampant Earned Income Tax Credit fraud. Audit rates though of the really rich are 30x that of the poor.

by lisper 6y ago

majormajor 6y ago

> Third, the payoff for a billionaire successfully cheating on their taxes is much higher than for a non-billionaire. And finally, even if a billionaire does get caught and pays all their back-taxes with penalties, they will still most likely be a billionaire and be able to sustain a pretty posh lifestyle. This is the weird part to me. I don't think the marginal payoff is higher for a billionaire, other than in ego or ideological or other less-rational terms. Someone making 50K who scams an extra 2K out of their taxes has gotten themselves a pretty big boost to their disposable income. While a billionaire already has millions to play with... I would support higher and harsher penalties for larger absolute amounts of tax fraud, though, because you're depriving your fellow citizens of more if you're keeping larger $$ amounts.

lisper 6y ago
Billionaires think differently about money than non-billionaires. Ordinary people use money to exercise control over their own lives. Billionaires use money to exercise control over other people's lives, and when that is your goal, a few extra billion dollars means a few extra tens of thousands of people you can put on payroll to do your bidding, whatever that might happen to be. It lets you do things like run for president or go into space. It's not my cup of tea, but it's not fair to call it "irrational". Some people just want different things.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  It might be rational to want those things. But I think I would argue that people largely shouldn't be able to have them.
dmurray 6y ago
Yeah, it's not intellectually honest to argue "a billionaire committing a billion-dollar tax fraud has a lot to gain, because a billion dollars is a lot of money, but a billionaire getting fined a billion dollars is nothing to him, because diminishing marginal utility."
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  How is it dishonest? They have a lot to gain financially, and the penalty for doing so (although steep) is not significant enough to have a material impact on the person committing the fraud. That seems like the exact moral hazard that creates this situation. For a poor person, the same situation is likely life-altering in either case.
  - jeddy3 6y ago
    > How is it dishonest? Either a billion dollars is a lot, or it is not.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      It's clearly both. The behavior of the billionaires makes that clear. Billions of dollars is enough incentive to commit tax fraud, and (hundreds of) millions of dollars in fines has not been enough to disincentive tax fraud.
    - treis 6y ago
      $1,000 to you is (probably) not a lot. For someone in a third world shithole it's several years to a life time of earnings. Perspective matters when determining if something is "a lot" or not.
      - jeddy3 6y ago
        Well, yeah, obviously. But using in the same sentence as both, depending on the point you're trying to prove, is a little dishonest. As MrPatan pointed out in a sibling comment, the sentence is about the same person.
coldtea 6y ago
>This is the weird part to me. I don't think the marginal payoff is higher for a billionaire, other than in ego or ideological or other less-rational terms. It is higher in a very real and measurable way: it's way more money. Doesn't have to higher as a "marginal payoff". (Besides that would imply that if the billionaire didn't get any real benefit or pleasure from the non-taxed money, they should face no penalty).
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> Someone making 50K who scams an extra 2K out of their taxes has gotten themselves a pretty big boost to their disposable income. another way to think of this is in the difference of relationship to money between a billionaire and a in comparison poor person. give 2K to the avg Joe/Jane they'll circulate it back into the market by purchasing while the billionaire sees themself as a "steward of their fortune" and who would keep in their accounts. (also the reason why trickle-down Reaganomics doesn't work). Also to a billionaire there is a high chance justifying tax-avoidance (and evasion) is easier since they anyway do it using multinational corporations. And obvs. it's more work to go after big cases where the fight is about proofing overstepping the line between avoidance/evasion while with poor people the case is usually about just evasion. I'll continue to recommend this here whenever the topic comes up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_and_the_Men_Who_Stole_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands:_Tax_Havens_a...
- briffle 6y ago
  To a person dealing with the IRS over millions, a whole team of lawyers at $1k/hour each is a drop in the bucket. to a person who cheated uncle sam of $2k, its cheaper to settle (even with penalties) than to hire a single lawyer to represent them. That is why the IRS loves going after the little guys, they don't fight back.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    They often don’t fight back because it’s often a fairly clear-cut matter where the taxpayer is in the wrong and both sides just move to resolution.
  - golf1052 6y ago
    Loves is a strong word. I think it makes more sense to say that the IRS doesn't have the budget or resources to go after the big players. Yes, people cheating only $2k probably won't pay for a lawyer but from the IRS side it's just much simpler to analyze and prove that person is in the wrong. See this article from ProPublica https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted
bayesianbot 6y ago
To the latter part of top post, for a billionaire utility value and expected value are equal as if he gains or loses a few million it doesn't matter. For smaller player they can be completely different, yes a few thousand can be a good income gain, but getting caught can mean they get completely ruined. So if expected value of tax cheating in vacuum is - lets imagine - 20% of the amount of taxes cheated, billionaire should cheat on taxes in every situation, as they simply gain 20% on average. Smaller player shouldn't, as even though their expected value is the same, their utility value can be completely different as they might take a risk of ruining their business and losing future income and hugely lowering their quality of life. edit: and also for small amounts the way down is much harsher on the utility value, so being a favorite to gain 10k might not be worth it, if the possible -15k means your lifestyle suffers.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  I think you're leaving out enforcement costs. If you're little and scamming a few $k here and there, the ROI (Return on Investigation) for the IRS to go after you is tiny. It's probably not worth assigning an investigator. If you're HUGE and scamming billions, the ROI is there but you also have the capabilities to defend yourself, obfuscate things, etc so it's unlikely they can destroy you. Therefore, it's not one investigator but a team with forensic accountants, potentially informants, etc. For everyone else, the danger is in the middle. Where you have enough that you can lose a life-destroying amount but you don't have the means to protect yourself. That is a great target for investigators. In short, as you gain more, be careful and have a good accountant who follows the rules to the best of their ability.. until you can make the rules. Oh crap.

buzzerbetrayed 6y ago

> the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) I'm not sure how this is relevant. As of October 2020, there were 614 billionaires in the US[1]. Of those 614 people, only a few of them are likely breaking any sort of tax law (billionaires have a lot of money to make sure they take advantage of loopholes, without breaking the law). So there isn't some big list of billionaires that the IRS could be going after but is choosing not to. So the question is, are there known billionaire tax evaders that aren't getting prosecuted? That should be the only question that matters. Using statistics in this case would likely lead to more injustice than less, as the only way you could get billionaire vs non-billionaire prosecutions rates to align is by prosecuting billionaires that aren't breaking the law. (edit: unless there are many billionaire tax evaders that are just getting away with it, of course. I don't know if that's the case or not) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
the typical billionaire can easily go to another country (and immediately get a passport if they wish). it helps looking at this not just from an US/Western pov but how Chinese, Russian, African billionaires are quickly feeling at home in places like US[1], UK, Switzerland. There is a lot more money to be made (and washed) in places like Africa / Asia that requires a "safe haven" [1] the US today is one of the biggest tax-havens in the world (source: "Treasure Island") and the OECD crackdown on the usual suspects (Cayman, Channel Islands, ...) never hurt anyone since the US really just wanted a slice of the off-shore pie (which anyway exists whether with or without the US as a tax-haven).

Natsu 6y ago

But won't the billionaire be highly unlikely to have any hand in doing their own taxes? I'd imagine that you'd have someone doing that for you and have no idea of the details. I'm significantly poorer than the billionaires, but the only thing I know about taxes is what forms I need to gather and mail to my tax guy.

lisper 6y ago
Billionaires will typically give an indication to the people they hire to prepare their taxes how hard s/he wants them to lean on the rules.

glitchc 6y ago

It should be taken into consideration that it's much harder to prove that the billionaire actually cheated vs. a regular Joe, who may simply have lied on his taxes. The IRS, in the vein of all prosecutors, will not prosecute unless they can make a strong enough case to make a conviction highly probable.

modeless 6y ago

> even if a billionaire does get caught and pays all their back-taxes with penalties, they will still most likely be a billionaire and be able to sustain a pretty posh lifestyle By that logic, if they just pay their taxes it won't affect their lifestyle either, so their incentive to cheat is also lower. > the payoff for a billionaire successfully cheating on their taxes is much higher than for a non-billionaire In absolute terms, sure. And in absolute terms the penalties are much bigger too. > the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a billionaire has much better odds of not getting caught Your conclusion doesn't follow from your evidence. It's possible that low income people are cheating taxes at a higher rate than billionaires. I really don't have a lot of trouble believing this; small tax fraud is widespread, even accepted by a lot of people. > billionaires have access to better layers, accountants, publicists and politicians to give them negotiating leverage if they do get caught I don't see any evidence that this guy got a better deal than he should have. The point of tax enforcement is not to punish billionaires for being billionaires. The point of tax enforcement is to ensure taxes are collected. If you think taxes are too low, or just want to punish billionaires more harshly because they're billionaires, then Congress is the place that has to be changed.

onethought 6y ago
I definitely think the wealthy should be held to a higher standard than the poor. Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. There is evidence he worked out a deal with the removal of deductions regarding his charity... why did they remove those deductions? If he’s entitled to them... clearly it was done as a negotiating piece. How many average Joe’s have 180 million in deductions to negotiate with?
- vmception 6y ago
  > why did they remove those deductions? yes, it is 3-pronged a) easy to identify b) liquidity, easy to use for payment c) kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback c might sound annoying, but the revenue service has the primary goal of revenue. replenishing the treasury so it can make its own interest payments. you might say, "well take that and still jail the people". okay, I guess. it could have happened here. all parties in this case acknowledge that a court case would not have any guaranteed results, specifically because of your second sentence: > Not only is the magnitude of their crime bigger, but their is less justification for it. The justification is actually broader. Like, sure if the billionaire lacks a justification for paying yes, but the reality is that the government doesn't know WHICH justification the billionaire is using. That's the game. They can be totally blindsided. And then there's the jury, yeah sure a jury with populist sentiment against billionaires combined with a jury judging a black man, doesn't sound great for the defendant but that overlooks everything that was attempted. The man tried to use the amnesty program that the US government set up, and the government denied him! The man already snitched for the government on his first investor who set him up for life! The man tried filing amended tax returns. The jury might actually take a dim view on the state for that, I could totally see a hung jury. And then his lawyers can totally drop some legal opinions they made years ago that showed a justification the government didn't expect at all, shifting liability away from the defendant.

WalterBright 6y ago

> First, the IRS prosecutes a lot more low-income people than high-income people (by percentage as well as by absolute numbers) so a billionaire has much better odds of not getting caught. That assumes they cheat at the same rate.

MegaButts 6y ago
Is there any reason to believe that billionaires don't cheat more? I don't think billionaires are rich because they're more talented. I think they're rich because they're more opportunistic and, quite frankly, shittier human beings.
- hnburnsy 6y ago
  From the IRS... 'IRS estimates that between 21 percent to 26 percent of EITC claims are paid in error. Some of the errors are unintentional caused by the complexity of the law, but some of the claims are intentional disregard of the law'
  - MegaButts 6y ago
    That statistic is irrelevant since it doesn't distinguish between rich and poor. But the IRS has publicly admitted to not pursuing rich people because "it's too hard." https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich https://www.gq.com/story/no-irs-audits-for-the-rich
    - hnburnsy 6y ago
      Income audit rates... Income Range/Percent Examined 2015 1-$25,0000/.66 … $10,000,000+/8.16 "The typical audits for higher-income taxpayers involve at least three different tax years, often include related entities, and routinely take years to resolve. The highest income taxpayers face the most significant chance of an examination, and they face the most highly trained and experienced IRS agents and teams utilizing our most sophisticated tools and techniques." https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/irs-audit-rates-significantly-increase-as-income-rises https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/irs-audit-rates-significantly-...

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

The IRS has nice little boxes that the low income people can fill in that are blatantly obvious when fraudulent. It's not the IRS's fault that people think they can fudge some number and it not instantly get flagged on entry into the computer.

hnburnsy 6y ago

The IRS audits most poor earners because of rampant Earned Income Tax Credit fraud. Audit rates though of the really rich are 30x that of the poor.