4 ms·
You'd think that reduction in IRS budget would actually do the opposite - make them concentrate on high value targets such as the "ultra rich" rather than small
by m0zg 5y ago
You'd think that reduction in IRS budget would actually do the opposite - make them concentrate on high value targets such as the "ultra rich" rather than small time business owners such as myself. If that's not what's happening, then adding more IRS agents won't increase their propensity to go after the "ultra rich".
Thus far they tried to go after me twice in 3 years, both times unsuccessfully because I have a kickass accountant. The largest amount they tried to go after was $16K. Hardly a match for Powell's money printing skills.
- threatofrain 5y agoNo, that wouldn't be the intuition at all. If you don't have a big war chest, then you don't go after big targets.
- m0zg 5y agoI'll tell you a secret. Even if they do have a big war chest, they aren't going to go after those targets either. Those targets _write laws_ nowadays, including the _tax laws_.
- calciphus 5y agoYou're responding to data with feelings. Overfitting that data to your narrative is pretty unconvincing. If we agree that incalculable, diety-level wealth affords benefits of immunity from the law, that doesn't translate to "reducing or increasing an enforcement budget is pointless." Are you arguing that enforcement is without merit if it doesn't catch 100%? Increasing the capabilites of those responsible for enforcement of tax laws does not typically result in more tax evasion. Sure, you can argue the merit of those laws or the effectiveness of them in supporting the State's goals, but it's hard to argue "fewer enforcers benefits the must vulnerable" in the most modern economies, when we have significant and ample data to the contrary.
- m0zg 5y agoI'm responding with facts. There's no "data" in the post I responded to.