[DavidPeiffer]

> Imagine 20 dollars per dollar spent, that's the type of unicorn investment that basically every VC hunts for.

It's frustrating that every business person who has ever lived would absolutely throw money at that formula if it was part of their business, but that's not politically popular because the IRS costs money to operate.

Mathemarically it makes sense to go until you hit 1:1. If we increased enforcement until, say, 4 dollars collected for every 1 spent in each of the major categories, the deterrent factor would probably help people be more honest in times of dishonesty, naturally helping the problem for the following year.

[ghaff]

>Mathemarically it makes sense to go until you hit 1:1

Maybe mathematically. But realize that the targets of the audits are probably bearing at least as much of the cost burden of the audit as the IRS whether they did anything wrong or not. And you'll almost certainly cost a lot of people who made honest mistakes a lot of money.

So, no, it's not at all clear that the IRC should be revenue-maximizing.

[powerhour]

If they become more efficient because they get a larger budget, that would very publicly contradict a lot of campaign messaging.

[RhysU]

> Mathemarically it makes sense to go until you hit 1:1.

Nah, until we get better returns on other endeavors for the same dollar.