You're responding to data with feelings. Overfitting that data to your narrative is pretty unconvincing. If we agree that incalculable, diety-level wealth affo

You'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.