Many scams, including the example parent gave, trade on fear rather than a fake reward. How does "more risk tolerant" play when the victims are cooperating because they think they will be prosecuted by the IRS or sued if they don't pay up?
If you comply, then you risk losing the money (what if it was a scam?) versus the benefit of avoiding jail.
If you refuse, then you risk jail (what if it was real?) versus the benefit of keeping the money.
If you get a scam IRS call, then refusing is correct. But the risk-tolerant person considers the alternative: the potential for benefits of compliance over the risk of compliance; they might think "Could be a scam... but I'd rather not go to jail!"
If you get a real IRS letter, then complying is correct. But the risk-tolerant person considers refusing and benefit of keeping their money; they might think "Could be a scam... I'm not paying!"
You acknowledge it yourself. There’s “risk” to both complying and ignoring the call.
Anyway, risk tolerance isn’t the right lens to look at this. It’s about knowing whether that’s the way the government would actually issue demands and take payments. That requires some savvy and insight about the world. Some people have it and some people don’t. And relatedly, it’s about being skeptical vs. trusting in general.
This is exactly it. I have received several “your social security number will be cancelled” calls. The caller id is the real social security 800 number. If you didn’t know better and relied on disability or social security benefits, I can imagine that would be pretty frightening.
