4 ms·

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/20

by jimmy1 8y ago

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here. It's a little more nuanced than that, and not necessarily an either/or as you have described it. More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere. While Vermont does rank high in K-12 (4th), it is ranked 36th in higher education. Vermont is also the 2nd least populated state in the country, so it remains to be seen how scale will impact the education system there.

0xfeba 8y ago
> More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient [...] spender The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does. So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere." People say that, but then they privatize functions of government, and if they're lucky, they end up with the same level of service. And then now there's a middleman involved who needs to get profit, meaning wages and service get cut.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I ran across an interesting book on that topic, which describes pitfalls of privatization in a balanced way: You Don't Always Get What You Pay For The Economics of Privatization by Elliott D. Sclar http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100290390 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010029039...

by jimmy1 8y ago

0xfeba 8y ago

> More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient [...] spender The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does. So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere." People say that, but then they privatize functions of government, and if they're lucky, they end up with the same level of service. And then now there's a middleman involved who needs to get profit, meaning wages and service get cut.

perl4ever 8y ago
I ran across an interesting book on that topic, which describes pitfalls of privatization in a balanced way: You Don't Always Get What You Pay For The Economics of Privatization by Elliott D. Sclar http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100290390 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010029039...