With a sufficiently complex tax code, bureaucrats can selectively enforce or interpret it as they choose. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect abuse if there is an incentive for agents to collect more.
The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
This seems to indicate that it is a net positive for everyone else. If they don't collect tax money from those owners, all of the benefits of that money goes to those owners and none of it goes to anyone else.
> The low vs high tax debate is kind of a moot argument anyways since the US govt can pretty much print money as needed...which ends up being an indirect tax on the general public via inflation.
So... it's not a moot point? One group, through taxation policies, is asked to pay a larger share of what would have been an indirect tax on the general public.
The IRS isn't collecting more taxes. Even a kid would know they aren't even allowed to do that. They're just collecting taxes that are already owed. If the government wanted to increase taxes then they could already do that right now but they aren't because no one would vote for them. Increasing IRS funding would help the government collect taxes from the people who owe them which would lower the overall tax burden of the average tax payer (assuming they actually pay taxes).
If it costs the IRS $100 to collect $1000 then that means that's $900 less that everyone else needs to pay.