You are restating the optimization problem of how much to tolerate?
Agreed that it is common for folks to discuss eliminating fraud/non-compliance as the target; and the reality is that you should spend up against fraud/non-compliance up to the point that you do not lose more to those than you are now spending on fighting them.
This is unsurprisingly general in application. It explains why people neglect maintenance costs, for example. Since there will be some level of neglect that can be tolerated and the opportunity costs of constant maintenance checking can be severe.
Bringing it back to this, though, my understanding is that most increases of funding to the IRS has positive returns. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/irs-expects-to-collect-... is a quick find for what made me think this. I would not be shocked to know this is overstated, but would be a little surprised. Do you have contrary reads?
Agreed that it is common for folks to discuss eliminating fraud/non-compliance as the target; and the reality is that you should spend up against fraud/non-compliance up to the point that you do not lose more to those than you are now spending on fighting them.
This is unsurprisingly general in application. It explains why people neglect maintenance costs, for example. Since there will be some level of neglect that can be tolerated and the opportunity costs of constant maintenance checking can be severe.
Bringing it back to this, though, my understanding is that most increases of funding to the IRS has positive returns. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/irs-expects-to-collect-... is a quick find for what made me think this. I would not be shocked to know this is overstated, but would be a little surprised. Do you have contrary reads?