2 ms·
>Firstly, most American file their taxes using software that all but makes it impossible for them to be wrong in any significant way. >Secondly, that is aided
by slg 5y ago
>Firstly, most American file their taxes using software that all but makes it impossible for them to be wrong in any significant way.
>Secondly, that is aided by the fact that all major financial institutions pipe their customers data straight into the government and into each other. There is very little space for lying or hiding assets. The whole system is computerized.
That is true for me and you, but is it true for the people who they are actually trying to catch? Someone with hundreds of millions or billions isn't going to be using TurboTax or have most of their income funneling through a checking account at Wells Fargo.
>And to be frank, I doubt that the pursuit of major tax evaders is really a function of lack of resources. I’d strongly wager that it’s a lack of political will.
These are the same reasons. They have a lack of resources because there is a lack of political will.
- CityOfThrowaway 5y agoIt’s probably not true about people with hundreds of millions or billions. Yet, intuitively I’d still assume that the digitization efforts of the last few decades would still result in a net-decrease in audit headcount. Before the 2000s, it was not uncommon for average earners to get a visit from an auditor. Based on some of the publications by the IRS I have read, it’s now significantly less likely for average earners to get audited than high-income earners. Beyond that, the probability that a high-income earner is growing relative to average income earners. Given the sheer volume of people in the average-and-below bucket, it makes intuitive sense that changes to the audit rate in that group would have an outsized impact on the overall headcount requirements.