4 ms·

~2.5:1 is a far cry from your $100,000 cost with $1 return though, and GPs point still stands: increasing funding, even if just until the return is ~1.5:1 (less

~2.5:1 is a far cry from your $100,000 cost with $1 return though, and GPs point still stands: increasing funding, even if just until the return is ~1.5:1 (less than the guesstimated ~2.5:1), is clearly a sound investment.

sokoloff 4y ago
That wasn’t my estimate of the actual IRS plans but rather a clarifying/rhetorical question of an up-thread hypothesis that we should expand the IRS until there is de minimus marginal income. Your issue is with their idea, I think.
mschuster91 4y ago
Even a 1.1:1 ROI is still a sound investment - non-compliance with taxes usually closely coincides with other criminal activity like wage fraud, employing undocumented people, selling re-labeled expired meat or environmental crimes like improper waste disposal. By regularly auditing especially large employers, the incentive for companies to commit these crimes because they'll get away with it suddenly also goes away. Simply said, if you can make an extra million dollars a year in profit, your company will be fined 100k if caught, and your company has an audit chance of 1 in 20 years, you can expect 19.9 million dollars in extra profit over that timeframe. Now, assuming an audit every five years, you're at only 4.9 million dollars of extra profit and the high chance of getting caught again and getting a harsher sentence as a repeat offender. Regular tax audits have far-reaching side effects.