[chowchowchow]

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]

> 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]

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?

[chii]

> 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.

[chowchowchow]

Yup. Small time crimes aren’t as important to law or tax enforcement as big time ones are. At least that’s the idea I guess.