4 ms·

Yes tax us more so it can be spent just as inefficiently. Throwing more money at our problems is not the solution.

chasing 8y ago
Throwing money at it would solve all sorts of problems. It'd let us pay teachers more. It'd let us provide more healthcare opportunities to people. It'd help us improve our infrastructure like roads and public transportation. It'd help our libraries. It'd make education less expensive, allowing more people access. Fewer people in economic distress means less crime. Better parks. Better maintenance of natural spaces. Etc. Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  In most Bay Area communities education bond measures pass with ease. Same with open space measures. Mid Peninsula Open Space is swimming in money, they buy land faster than they can open it. Bay Area voters just recently approved major funding boosts for Mid Peninsula...why would they do so again so soon? Seems like HN readers would do well to survey what has passed in the last ten years...
- meddlepal 8y ago
  More money == things are better is just too simple of a model to make a decision like this. You add more money to the system and where does it go? It's not automatically allocated to your causes, some of it gets siphoned off in administrative overhead. Some of it gets reallocated. Some of it is just used for cronyism or lost in the bureaucracy of doing business (e.g. paying lawyer fees to fight NIMBY's who are using environmental review to prevent the development of transportation or public housing). On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
  - drb91 8y ago
    > You add more money to the system and where does it go? Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. > On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. The people inclined to act in this communal/moral way are often not suited to make significant amounts of money to give away. You need to take the money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
    - sigstoat 8y ago
      > > You add more money to the system and where does it go? > Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, and growth that could've happened, didn't. all future humans are then harmed.
      - drb91 8y ago
        > no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, Who is to say this isn’t happening already? I don’t see many signs it’s well allocated today. Look at healthcare costs in America. Look at our defense spending for little tangible return. Look at the homeless on the streets. Look at where VC investments are going (ads, lifestyle spending, and automation—little to no benefit to society as the productivity returns go to the capitalists). Look at the debt necessary to get what is commonly considered a base for any career, ie a degree. Symptomatically, cash is already misallocated for a society that bolsters values I hold dear. > growth that could’ve happened, didn’t Ahh yes, the “market before everything” philosophy. I don’t buy into it. If growth were meaningfully good we’d see wage increase adjusted for inflation in the lower class. We haven’t seen this for decades.
  - chasing 8y ago
    > On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. If I was wealthy enough to self-fund quality healthcare for all Americans, I would. I can't. But I am pleased when hyper-wealthy people give back significant contributions to the common good.
- orangecat 8y ago
  The US already spends more than almost all other countries on education: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country.... Infrastructure costs are significantly higher as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... And of course our deranged health care system delivers worse results at higher costs by capturing exactly the worst aspects of both free markets and central planning. Flinging more money at these institutions is unlikely to do anything useful unless we can figure out why they're performing so poorly.
- scottlegrand2 8y ago
  In California at least, when you throw more money at education, they mostly just hire more administrators to manage the money. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243...
- closeparen 8y ago
  Our zoned housing capacity fits only N residents. No matter how much money you throw around, rents will simply rise until only N people can afford them. We don’t need more and more dollars chasing the same apartments. We need more apartments. Give low income workers more to spend on housing, and the only person whose life materially improves is the landlord.
gamblor956 8y ago
Throwing more money at problem works when the primary problem is that they aren't currently receiving enough money.
wwweston 8y ago
It's not prima facie obvious that public spending via taxation is less efficient. It's also not clear which argument you might be making asserting that it is -- the general characterizing of state agencies as bureaucratic and wasteful, or something like the undergrad econ models relating taxes to clearing gaps in supply/demand curves, or perhaps something even less specific -- but suffice it to say neither is the end of the story.
drb91 8y ago
Well better than letting the cash not get spent at all.
- thatswrong0 8y ago
  I don’t think tech workers in SV are the ones hoarding their cash.
  - drb91 8y ago
    I was more indicating the capitalists here.
AlexandrB 8y ago
> Yes tax us more so it can be spent just as inefficiently. Citation needed. Even supposedly inefficient government spending helps the economy more than having the top 1% hoard resources. Consider Apple's huge cash on hand as an example of the latter. What economic benefit is society deriving from allowing Apple to dodge taxes and keeping that money out of the hands of government? Now consider that some government programs are wildly efficient[1] while funding basic research that private VCs won't touch. And finally that government employees are often paid orders of magnitude less than their private-sector counterparts for doing largely the same work. Is there inefficiency in government? Yes. But probably no more than in a similarly sized private company. [1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate-arpa-e-success https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate...
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  Go walk around an urban area in America. You'd think with San Francisco's $11,000,000,000 annual budget they'd be able to fix some roads.

Throwing money at it would solve all sorts of problems. It'd let us pay teachers more. It'd let us provide more healthcare opportunities to people. It'd help us improve our infrastructure like roads and public transportation. It'd help our libraries. It'd make education less expensive, allowing more people access. Fewer people in economic distress means less crime. Better parks. Better maintenance of natural spaces. Etc. Government isn't perfect. But neither is private industry. We need both. And both need money to function well.

claydavisss 8y ago
In most Bay Area communities education bond measures pass with ease. Same with open space measures. Mid Peninsula Open Space is swimming in money, they buy land faster than they can open it. Bay Area voters just recently approved major funding boosts for Mid Peninsula...why would they do so again so soon? Seems like HN readers would do well to survey what has passed in the last ten years...
meddlepal 8y ago
More money == things are better is just too simple of a model to make a decision like this. You add more money to the system and where does it go? It's not automatically allocated to your causes, some of it gets siphoned off in administrative overhead. Some of it gets reallocated. Some of it is just used for cronyism or lost in the bureaucracy of doing business (e.g. paying lawyer fees to fight NIMBY's who are using environmental review to prevent the development of transportation or public housing). On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government.
- drb91 8y ago
  > You add more money to the system and where does it go? Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. > On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. The people inclined to act in this communal/moral way are often not suited to make significant amounts of money to give away. You need to take the money from the rich people and give it to the poor people.
  - sigstoat 8y ago
    > > You add more money to the system and where does it go? > Probably from rich person to rich person, but there's the hope tax money goes to actual services. At worst we're in the same position. no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, and growth that could've happened, didn't. all future humans are then harmed.
    - drb91 8y ago
      > no, the worst case is that capital was misallocated, Who is to say this isn’t happening already? I don’t see many signs it’s well allocated today. Look at healthcare costs in America. Look at our defense spending for little tangible return. Look at the homeless on the streets. Look at where VC investments are going (ads, lifestyle spending, and automation—little to no benefit to society as the productivity returns go to the capitalists). Look at the debt necessary to get what is commonly considered a base for any career, ie a degree. Symptomatically, cash is already misallocated for a society that bolsters values I hold dear. > growth that could’ve happened, didn’t Ahh yes, the “market before everything” philosophy. I don’t buy into it. If growth were meaningfully good we’d see wage increase adjusted for inflation in the lower class. We haven’t seen this for decades.
- chasing 8y ago
  > On a tangential note, there is nothing stopping you and a group of like-minded individuals from just paying more taxes to the government. If I was wealthy enough to self-fund quality healthcare for all Americans, I would. I can't. But I am pleased when hyper-wealthy people give back significant contributions to the common good.
orangecat 8y ago
The US already spends more than almost all other countries on education: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country.... Infrastructure costs are significantly higher as well: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne.... And of course our deranged health care system delivers worse results at higher costs by capturing exactly the worst aspects of both free markets and central planning. Flinging more money at these institutions is unlikely to do anything useful unless we can figure out why they're performing so poorly.
scottlegrand2 8y ago
In California at least, when you throw more money at education, they mostly just hire more administrators to manage the money. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article140663243...
closeparen 8y ago
Our zoned housing capacity fits only N residents. No matter how much money you throw around, rents will simply rise until only N people can afford them. We don’t need more and more dollars chasing the same apartments. We need more apartments. Give low income workers more to spend on housing, and the only person whose life materially improves is the landlord.

gamblor956 8y ago

Throwing more money at problem works when the primary problem is that they aren't currently receiving enough money.

wwweston 8y ago

It's not prima facie obvious that public spending via taxation is less efficient. It's also not clear which argument you might be making asserting that it is -- the general characterizing of state agencies as bureaucratic and wasteful, or something like the undergrad econ models relating taxes to clearing gaps in supply/demand curves, or perhaps something even less specific -- but suffice it to say neither is the end of the story.

drb91 8y ago

Well better than letting the cash not get spent at all.

thatswrong0 8y ago
I don’t think tech workers in SV are the ones hoarding their cash.
- drb91 8y ago
  I was more indicating the capitalists here.

AlexandrB 8y ago

> Yes tax us more so it can be spent just as inefficiently. Citation needed. Even supposedly inefficient government spending helps the economy more than having the top 1% hoard resources. Consider Apple's huge cash on hand as an example of the latter. What economic benefit is society deriving from allowing Apple to dodge taxes and keeping that money out of the hands of government? Now consider that some government programs are wildly efficient[1] while funding basic research that private VCs won't touch. And finally that government employees are often paid orders of magnitude less than their private-sector counterparts for doing largely the same work. Is there inefficiency in government? Yes. But probably no more than in a similarly sized private company. [1] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate-arpa-e-success https://www.nrdc.org/experts/despite-trumps-threat-eliminate...

pteredactyl 8y ago
Go walk around an urban area in America. You'd think with San Francisco's $11,000,000,000 annual budget they'd be able to fix some roads.