"The rate at which taxpayers understate their tax liability increases monotonically with income and average adjustments are highest in the highest income decile" [1].
At the end of the day, the enforcement is there for one reason: to make sure everyone pays for the shared facilities of society. If you catch someone who was supposed to pay 250.000 or catch 1000 someones who all had 100 outstanding tax, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the big fish first?
Of course, but the reason they don't is that the tax system is a psychological control mechanism disguised as "doing good" (I make that assertion by looking at the utter amount of careless, unaccountable waste in government despite the endless gaslighting about "muh roads").
Why? Because if you can keep the majority in the psychological bracket of being the property of their government (purely via suggestion), you guarantee some percentage of cash flows. The "big fish" are smart and financed well-enough to circumvent (legally, in many cases) the system, while the little fish are ripe for catch and require far less worms/fishing poles to track down.
This is why a flat tax rate with a floor is necessary. If you don't make above a certain amount per year (e.g., at or just above the poverty line), you don't pay any taxes. Everyone above that pays 10%. The government, as they should, adjusts their budget accordingly instead of treating citizens like an ATM. What the money gets spent on is transparent, itemized, and readily available for you, me, and everyone else. This would solve all of the unnecessary red tape and procedure, fearmongering, etc. And that's precisely why it will never happen.
I hope you mean 10% of the amount of the part of their income that's above the line, and not 10% of their total income. Otherwise, this would cause a horrible welfare cliff.
If the point of tax dollars is to fund some form of socialism (e.g., for the disabled or others who can't care for themselves), then allocate the majority of tax revenue to that and strip down the federal government to bare essentials (as it should be). Also offer tax credits to people who offer amounts above 10% for allocation to such costs.
There's plenty of ways to take care of others without letting it burn up in the hands of the unproductive class (edit: meaning the government, not people who can't care for themselves).
Had to double-check...what I said still stands. If people are retaining more of what they earn (nationally, not just on an individual basis), market dynamics should play out that costs are lower, too, meaning you're not chasing increasing prices all the time with the same money (if we were on a Bitcoin standard, that would be even more true as there'd be no means for manipulating the money supply).
"Cheating" is a very loaded word to use here.
Increasing funding so the IRS can hire the proper staff to enforce tax-law across the board is the solution and it results in net revenue for the government. But the GOP consistently opposes these measures and is intent on hamstringing the IRS in its ability to audit higher-income households and businesses.