5 ms·

I know this sounds crazy, but how about we apply the law equally to everyone? I have a difficult time seeing how targeting or generalizing any group of people r

I know this sounds crazy, but how about we apply the law equally to everyone? I have a difficult time seeing how targeting or generalizing any group of people rather than individual likelihood of tax evasion is an appropriate application of resources.

sebzim4500 3y ago
Currently they prioritize going after people on low to middle income, so if there is additional funding it should go towards the people currently being ignored.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  you see that claim, but the caviat is that many of the types of fruad/errors made by low to middle income are easily detected. You can easily run a program to detect people claiming the same dependents.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    Yeah, last time this topic came up, I seem to recall that it turned out the vast majority of "audits" claimed to be targeted at the lower-classes were automated, mostly intended to catch common "whoopsies", and usually resulted in a pretty chill "yo, we think you owe X for reason Y, send us a check if you agree, or else perform the following steps to dispute" letters, not, like, thugs knocking down someone's door and demanding to comb through all their records from the last seven years. ... while audits for rich folks required heavy human involvement right from the beginning, so of course the numbers are skewed such that it looks like they are targeting the middle and lower classes, if you treat both types of audit as identical.
    - chii 3y ago
      Plus audits on rich folks who tend to employ tax lawyers and specialists would usually not deliberately commit fraud, but use unintended "loopholes" which would require some sort of tribunal to decide legality (such as a court or something). These sorts of audits may or may not return any extra revenue. The highest likelihood of tax fraud are people who commit small fraud that, to them, seem undetectable.
dougmwne 3y ago
Because it’s unprofitable. Think of the IRS like the sales staff of a business. Taxes are the revenues. No business would be rewarded for wasting marketing and sales budget on chasing customers who have no ability to pay. Sure you could go after a low income tax cheat, but you end up just putting them in debt if they don’t actually have the ability to pay you. This is all about justice vs. profitability.
- CrunchyJams 3y ago
  Except it's not a business. It's the government and it's job is to apply the law in a country founded on the idea of equality. Should police only pull over people in luxury cars because they're more likely to be able to pay a speeding ticket?
  - chowchowchow 3y ago
    The better analogy is should police pull over someone going 120mph or going 80mph if they have to choose. Clear answer IMO. Similarly should the government prioritize more serious offenses over lesser? It's a bigger crime to evade $1,000,000 in taxes than it is to evade a $1,000 tax bill.
    - chii 3y ago
      > 120mph or going 80mph so the analogy is flawed, because you a priori assume the higher income people would perpetrate a higher amount of fraud. > It's a bigger crime to evade $1,000,000 in taxes than it is to evade a $1,000 tax bill. Yes, but is earning a higher income make you a higher probability of higher fraud? I don't think fraud is distributed like that. In fact, i would argue that the higher income you are, the more likely you are to use professional services for taxes, which means you are less likely to commit fraud!
      - chowchowchow 3y ago
        I’d know for sure that higher income people by nature of their higher income are capable of committing larger tax fraud. Is it unfair that police patrol for speeders on the highway more than on bike paths?
oivey 3y ago
Because stealing a car isn’t equal to stealing a candy bar. The more money you make the greater the possible size of the evasion.
pastor_bob 3y ago
It's far easier for a business to evade paying taxes. Half the businesses I visit in NYC admit they want cash so they don't have to report it on their taxes.

sebzim4500 3y ago

Currently they prioritize going after people on low to middle income, so if there is additional funding it should go towards the people currently being ignored.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
you see that claim, but the caviat is that many of the types of fruad/errors made by low to middle income are easily detected. You can easily run a program to detect people claiming the same dependents.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Yeah, last time this topic came up, I seem to recall that it turned out the vast majority of "audits" claimed to be targeted at the lower-classes were automated, mostly intended to catch common "whoopsies", and usually resulted in a pretty chill "yo, we think you owe X for reason Y, send us a check if you agree, or else perform the following steps to dispute" letters, not, like, thugs knocking down someone's door and demanding to comb through all their records from the last seven years. ... while audits for rich folks required heavy human involvement right from the beginning, so of course the numbers are skewed such that it looks like they are targeting the middle and lower classes, if you treat both types of audit as identical.
  - chii 3y ago
    Plus audits on rich folks who tend to employ tax lawyers and specialists would usually not deliberately commit fraud, but use unintended "loopholes" which would require some sort of tribunal to decide legality (such as a court or something). These sorts of audits may or may not return any extra revenue. The highest likelihood of tax fraud are people who commit small fraud that, to them, seem undetectable.

dougmwne 3y ago

Because it’s unprofitable. Think of the IRS like the sales staff of a business. Taxes are the revenues. No business would be rewarded for wasting marketing and sales budget on chasing customers who have no ability to pay. Sure you could go after a low income tax cheat, but you end up just putting them in debt if they don’t actually have the ability to pay you. This is all about justice vs. profitability.

CrunchyJams 3y ago
Except it's not a business. It's the government and it's job is to apply the law in a country founded on the idea of equality. Should police only pull over people in luxury cars because they're more likely to be able to pay a speeding ticket?
- chowchowchow 3y ago
  The better analogy is should police pull over someone going 120mph or going 80mph if they have to choose. Clear answer IMO. Similarly should the government prioritize more serious offenses over lesser? It's a bigger crime to evade $1,000,000 in taxes than it is to evade a $1,000 tax bill.
  - chii 3y ago
    > 120mph or going 80mph so the analogy is flawed, because you a priori assume the higher income people would perpetrate a higher amount of fraud. > It's a bigger crime to evade $1,000,000 in taxes than it is to evade a $1,000 tax bill. Yes, but is earning a higher income make you a higher probability of higher fraud? I don't think fraud is distributed like that. In fact, i would argue that the higher income you are, the more likely you are to use professional services for taxes, which means you are less likely to commit fraud!
    - chowchowchow 3y ago
      I’d know for sure that higher income people by nature of their higher income are capable of committing larger tax fraud. Is it unfair that police patrol for speeders on the highway more than on bike paths?

oivey 3y ago

Because stealing a car isn’t equal to stealing a candy bar. The more money you make the greater the possible size of the evasion.

pastor_bob 3y ago

It's far easier for a business to evade paying taxes. Half the businesses I visit in NYC admit they want cash so they don't have to report it on their taxes.