4 ms·
My point is: that's not a lot of money. It's called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox — "the low
by seiji 11y ago
My point is: that's not a lot of money.
It's called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_paradox — "the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking."
Influencing individuals is relatively cheap. You just have to overwhelm them. Our laws are made by a limited group of individuals. Ergo, influencing laws is relatively cheap once you've got a few million dollars to burn and can gain billions off the results.
- tptacek 11y agoI do not believe that sweeping US federal tax reform is a matter of a few million dollars of lobbying. I believe that a few million dollars can get you a bunch of state court judges, and even that the state government that can be influenced by lobbying expenditures might be "where all the real governing is happening". I do not believe the narrative that Intuit's pitiful lobbying expenditure is stunting our tax system. If the disclosure in ProPublica had been that Intuit was spending 10x, 20x more than that --- and it has the resources to do that --- I'd believe it more. As it stands, the specifics revealed by ProPublica make me less concerned about Intuit's influence. For what it's worth: I'd like a return-free IRS.