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.
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.
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!
> Is it unfair that police patrol for speeders on the highway more than on bike paths?
yes, if the majority of the people are on bike paths, and they're the majority of all frauds.
Esp. if to drive on the highway, you are often driven by a chauffeur, who are professionals and knows exactly which section of the highway allows you to go fast without breaking the legal limits.
Therefore, patrolling the highways in lieu of bike paths means you will miss all of the small time speeders, and occasionally just catch a big speeder. I would imagine the trade off is not worth the loss in speeding tickets.
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.