3 ms·

I'm confused. It seems like "They didn’t even bother to think about anything less than $100M" describes "going after big fish instead of little ones".

• photonthug 2y ago
  Yeah but then it’s explained why catching the big fish is hard, and a plea for sympathy due to staff cuts. That won’t work until/unless tax enforcement overall shifts from disproportionately affecting the poor to disproportionately affecting the rich, regardless of some special team of four people that targets big fish. The situation that we actually have is like if a one stoplight town is setting a speed trap because they need revenue.. but they target only old broken minivans going 5mph over, because they know corporate trucks and private red sports cars going 20 over the limit are more likely to have lawyers that buck the speeding ticket, and cost the town revenue instead of collecting it. Is adding more cops to pull over more old minivans really going to help the town buy a public park, or stop sports cars from speeding? It’s not only unfair, but also completely ineffective. Staffing/funding is always going to be a bullshit complaint because structurally, enforcement quotas and complex compliance requirements are always going to tend to create a preference for bureaucracies to punch down at soft targets. Similar to how militarizing police doesn’t actually help fix problems with law enforcement, adding additional “support” (ie weapons) for other institutions that have fundamentally broken politics/policies is not a good idea.