Fraud investigators should focus their attention on wealthy conservatives

Pro argues that profiling is a legitimate means for targeting investigations of possible crimes, and he cites profiling for suspected terrorists at airports. Profiling for terrorists is primarily based upon behavior patterns: they purchased a one-way ticket, they acting nervously, and so forth. That's comparable to having a computer program search tax records for suspicious behavior or following up on whistle-blower allegations of tax fraud. Pro wants to abandon using suspicious behavior as the method of profiling in favor of using a political test, to achieve the goal of harassing people who object to ever-expanding government. Terrorists are also profiled according to, say, membership in al Qaeda. That's because there is an established relationship between al Qaeda and terrorist behavior. In the debate, Pro offered no evidence whatsoever that rich conservatives are more likely to cheat on taxes than rich liberals. I established in Round 1 that rich liberals are professional scheming weasels, and Pro did not contest that. Therefore, based upon the evidence of the debate, it would make more sense to target rich liberals rather than rich conservatives. However, Pro needed to prove that targeting rich conservatives would produce more tax revenue than the present methods of investigating computer tagged returns, tips by informants, and the random picks that discourage tax fraud. Pro prevented no evidence whatsoever. On the Internet, one can find weak evidence that inhabitants of the Vega star system have traveled across the galaxy to stomp patterns in our corn fields. Yet Pro has found nothing, no matter how weak, to suggest that rich conservatives commit even slightly more tax fraud than rich liberals, or anyone else for that matter. He found nothing to suggest that the present methods of selecting cases for fraud investigations would be improved by his proposed harassment methods. Pro has no evidence supporting his case. He has built his case solely upon hatred for political opponents who oppose ever-expanding government. Pro did not respond to my argument that relatively few rich people commit tax fraud, because the rich can afford the accountants and lawyers to use legal tax avoidance. Liberals *are* the lawyers involved, and Pro didn't dispute that either. He did not dispute that large Wall Street firms supported Obama, or that they support the wildly complex new financial regulations. They know they can play the system and win, whereas if they had to do something productive they would be at a disadvantage. Pro did not respond to my argument that inheritance taxes are grossly unfair because inflated tax bills require family farms and family businesses must be sold off to pay inflated tax bills. The point stands. Pro offered that the "loopholes" that allow avoiding inheritance taxes should be closed. The loopholes all involve disposing of property before a person dies. The only way to close those loophole is for government to seize your property early on, before you have a chance to spend your money or give it away. That way, if you happen to have a little left after the confiscatory taxes that Pro wants, the government can get that too. Confiscation of property is unfair and it would destroy the economy by preventing investment. The evidence I offered in Round 1 is that a flat tax would increase the taxes paid by the rich, because the mechanism makes it very difficult to evade taxes. It closes all the loopholes. It's like trying to evade the V.A.T. or sales tax when buying something at a store. Tax simplification is appealing to rich conservatives because it frees up their time and resources to do productive things. Tax simplification is bitterly opposed by liberals, because they prosper by gaming the system rather than doing anything productive. They want productive people to be punished by high taxes while they escape through the myriad loopholes they build for themselves. Pro offers evidence that tea party supporters are slightly more wealthy than average. He offered no evidence that they are rich or even close to rich. Of course, he offers no evidence that they commit any tax fraud. They do better than average because they believe in work and investment. There are few stoned slackers in the tea party movement, and that improves their average. It is logical for people who realize that productivity comes from small government to support the concepts of limited government. Pro says, "the wealthy have a moral and legal duty to contribute towards the cost of maintaining the country that provided them with the platform for their success and those that refuse to do so must be punished." I agree. What Pro is advocating, however, it that rich liberals be relieved of paying any taxes, because only rich conservatives will be audited. Non-rich people ought to pay their share of taxes as well, and Pro resolves to end enforcement for them as well. Pro concludes by claiming, "in the light of the widespread abuse of the system by affluent tax cheats and the limited resources of the fraud agencies, tax investigators must be proactive and target the most likely offenders – wealthy conservatives." This is the "Hunting of the Shark" principle of evidence, called the Bellman's rule of three: that anything he says three times is true. We should reject that in favor of hard evidence. Pro offered no data at all. The resolution is negated.