6 ms·

The Time Tax

38 points by jbegley 5y ago

PaulHoule 5y ago
[Note that a reply to this message points to specific data that disproves the point in the first sentence] A fundamental aspect to it is that so many lawmakers are lawyers (especially ALL of the democrats) so that the burden of paperwork seems entirely different to them that it does to other people. If we had to do it all again we might have a bicameral legislature where there is a house of lawyers (who do have some qualification to write law) and a how of non-lawyers (who have some empathy with the rest of us.)
- asoneth 5y ago
  That's an interesting proposal. A similar argument could be made for why it is important to have both engineers and non-engineers involved in the creation of products.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Is there a federal lawmaker out there that even does this type of paperwork themselves? How quickly would things change if congresspeople had to do their own taxes and use run-of-the-mill insurance off of their state marketplaces?
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Yes there are plenty, they tend to be female democrats.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  If we do it all again I think we should require the equivalent of functional tests for laws. Or at least regular reviews to find out if they are actually worth having, that they are enforceable, that the people are in favour of them, etc.
- starfallg 5y ago
  >A fundamental aspect to it is that so many lawmakers are lawyers (especially ALL of the democrats) I'm pretty sure that this is untrue. Why bring this up at all?
- cepth 5y ago
  I think the general idea that "lawmakers are ex-lawyers, and therefore write extremely bureaucratic laws" is a common sentiment, but there are a number of reasons why I think this is not quite the case. Few (if any) US representatives or senators at the federal level are actually writing out legislation themselves. They hire staffers (see the "Personal staff" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff), sometimes lift language straight from lobbyist proposals (aka "model legislation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act, which is widely used at the state level), or defer to committee staffers (who are subject matter experts) to do the heavy lifting. For example, Lina Khan served from 2019-2020 as counsel to the House's "Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law", and you can see her fingerprints all over the written work that the committee produced. The framing, and sometimes direct language, of committee report sections are clearly lifted from her legal academia work. This is comparable to the fact that US federal judge at all levels (including SCOTUS) lean on their clerks to write the first drafts of their opinions, and serve primarily as editors of the final text. --- In regards to the empirical claim about the backgrounds of lawmakers, see page 8 of this report from the Congressional Research Service (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705). They say that 144 House members (32.7% of the total), and 50 senators (50%) hold law degrees. While I think you may have been using a bit of hyperbole, it is worth pointing out that there are not enough lawyers in Congress for "ALL of the democrats" to be lawyers. In terms of occupation (page 3), 85 reps and 28 senators were previously educators; 14 reps and 4 senators were physicians; etc. Yes there are plenty of law degree holders, but it's also worth considering what law-related job they held. Per the CRS report, 29 reps and 9 senators were previously prosecutors, and 1 rep and 6 senators were previously attorney generals. It's unclear to me why a career in the criminal side of our legal system would have much bearing on how someone drafts laws affecting taxation, provision of government services, etc. There's also the fact that many law degree holders practiced law for not long at all before winning elected office, or had more substantial "chapters" of their life not related to their degree. Take Jason Crow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Crow). He spent as much time as an Army Ranger as he did as a lawyer. One could easily construct a narrative that Mr. Crow, who has complained often about the bureaucracy of accessing veterans' healthcare, should be allergic to red tape and bureaucracy. But with the crude taxonomy of "he has a law degree", the other parts of his life would be overlooked. --- IMO, a big part of the bloated and inhumane parts of the bureaucracy have to do with the outgrowth of "administrative law" and "rulemaking" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_l... https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32240.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32240.html). Once a bill has been signed into law, the rulemaking process begins. These are where the actual details of a new law are hashed out. A bill may designate $X in funding for a program. Which contractors receive those contracts, hours of service, the amount of paperwork required, etc. are all handled at the administrative level. And it's certainly the case that for 99.9% of citizens, no one is submitting public comments during this period, and the input of ordinary people is often lacking. So when the IRS makes a free-file options for taxes difficult to use, in large part due to Intuit's lobbying (https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...), this is not the result of a carve-out or giveaway spelled out in actual legislation's text. It's the result of an actor exploiting the opacity of the rulemaking and administrative law practices.
- ThrustVectoring 5y ago
  The computerization of bureaucracy is probably another big part - since the people processing paperwork have more productive ways to manage the information and processes they require, they can mandate more of it without falling over and requiring clerks that they cannot afford to hire.
- sjg007 5y ago
  No it's not because they are lawyers. The paperwork is designed to reduce benefit claims and overall cost. Usually it is the state doing this to the letter of the law so that they can get Federal monies. PPP loans for example, easy to get.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Every year it blows my mind that I probably spend >24 hours of my life trying to get medical bills covered by insurance that I pay >$12,000 a year for. I wouldn't accept that type of service from something I pay $1,000 a year for... but we're stuck with it. It's absurd that healthcare is a debate in the US. The productivity loss alone from managing health insurance must be astronomical. I also have to waste my doctor's time and their office's billing department. I also have to pay my mental health therapist out of pocket because I had a long-standing relationship and they "retired" from accepting insurance and the plethora of paperwork, problems, and diagnosis requirements they have to put up with as a provider (fortunately they met me halfway, I couldn't afford it as a new client).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
minikites 5y ago
>It has in many cases purposefully made the system difficult, shifting the burden of public administration onto individuals and discouraging millions of Americans from seeking aid. This is pretty much it, the design of these programs are this way on purpose to discourage people from taking advantage of these benefits. >The United States government—whether controlled by Democrats, with their love of too-complicated-by-half, means-tested policy solutions; or Republicans, with their love of paperwork-as-punishment; or both, with their collective neglect of the implementation and maintenance of government programs Democrats love means-testing so they don't fall victim to attacks from Republicans about "welfare queens" and government waste. Republicans don't believe the government should provide aid to begin with, so their motivations are more clear. There's no real cohort in the US government who believe that benefits should be simple and universal, because they get dismissed as crazed socialists/communists. I see the future of the USA as dominated by the current gridlock until climate change and climate refugees cause the whole political system to break down. Predictions past that point are useless, kind of like a depressing version of the AI singularity.
caseyross 5y ago
Another way to think about it is as time pollution. It's not a perfect analogy, but you can imagine the US government as a factory that slowly churns out "Benefit Programs", and in the process emits a large amount of pollution onto nearby homes. This factory could invest in polluting less, but that would cost money, and would require it to increase the price of the product. And it so happens that the factory's customers are very price conscious! The customers are willing to accept a lot of pollution, because their goal is primarily to go back to their bosses and say "Look how cheaply I got all these Benefit Programs!" None of the participants in the production or buying processes have much incentive for the factory to clean up its act, so accordingly it keeps spewing out pollution onto people who, even if they hate it, can't really do anything to stop it (besides moving away from their homes). One possible tactic for resolving these negative externalities is to give the factory owners and customers skin in the game by making them live right next to the factory. In real world terms, this would be something like requiring lawmakers to live entirely off of government benefits, instead of any other income or wealth they possess. Another possible tactic is establishment of a universal basic income, which (in theory) could replace every other welfare program and thereby remove a lot of potential for time pollution. TL;DR: The incentives for US government administered benefits are all in favor of shifting work away from the government and onto individual citizens, as a way of saving money.

38 points by jbegley 5y ago

[Note that a reply to this message points to specific data that disproves the point in the first sentence] A fundamental aspect to it is that so many lawmakers are lawyers (especially ALL of the democrats) so that the burden of paperwork seems entirely different to them that it does to other people. If we had to do it all again we might have a bicameral legislature where there is a house of lawyers (who do have some qualification to write law) and a how of non-lawyers (who have some empathy with the rest of us.)

asoneth 5y ago
That's an interesting proposal. A similar argument could be made for why it is important to have both engineers and non-engineers involved in the creation of products.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Is there a federal lawmaker out there that even does this type of paperwork themselves? How quickly would things change if congresspeople had to do their own taxes and use run-of-the-mill insurance off of their state marketplaces?
- sjg007 5y ago
  Yes there are plenty, they tend to be female democrats.
kwhitefoot 5y ago
If we do it all again I think we should require the equivalent of functional tests for laws. Or at least regular reviews to find out if they are actually worth having, that they are enforceable, that the people are in favour of them, etc.
starfallg 5y ago
>A fundamental aspect to it is that so many lawmakers are lawyers (especially ALL of the democrats) I'm pretty sure that this is untrue. Why bring this up at all?
cepth 5y ago
I think the general idea that "lawmakers are ex-lawyers, and therefore write extremely bureaucratic laws" is a common sentiment, but there are a number of reasons why I think this is not quite the case. Few (if any) US representatives or senators at the federal level are actually writing out legislation themselves. They hire staffers (see the "Personal staff" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff), sometimes lift language straight from lobbyist proposals (aka "model legislation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_act, which is widely used at the state level), or defer to committee staffers (who are subject matter experts) to do the heavy lifting. For example, Lina Khan served from 2019-2020 as counsel to the House's "Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law", and you can see her fingerprints all over the written work that the committee produced. The framing, and sometimes direct language, of committee report sections are clearly lifted from her legal academia work. This is comparable to the fact that US federal judge at all levels (including SCOTUS) lean on their clerks to write the first drafts of their opinions, and serve primarily as editors of the final text. --- In regards to the empirical claim about the backgrounds of lawmakers, see page 8 of this report from the Congressional Research Service (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705). They say that 144 House members (32.7% of the total), and 50 senators (50%) hold law degrees. While I think you may have been using a bit of hyperbole, it is worth pointing out that there are not enough lawyers in Congress for "ALL of the democrats" to be lawyers. In terms of occupation (page 3), 85 reps and 28 senators were previously educators; 14 reps and 4 senators were physicians; etc. Yes there are plenty of law degree holders, but it's also worth considering what law-related job they held. Per the CRS report, 29 reps and 9 senators were previously prosecutors, and 1 rep and 6 senators were previously attorney generals. It's unclear to me why a career in the criminal side of our legal system would have much bearing on how someone drafts laws affecting taxation, provision of government services, etc. There's also the fact that many law degree holders practiced law for not long at all before winning elected office, or had more substantial "chapters" of their life not related to their degree. Take Jason Crow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Crow). He spent as much time as an Army Ranger as he did as a lawyer. One could easily construct a narrative that Mr. Crow, who has complained often about the bureaucracy of accessing veterans' healthcare, should be allergic to red tape and bureaucracy. But with the crude taxonomy of "he has a law degree", the other parts of his life would be overlooked. --- IMO, a big part of the bloated and inhumane parts of the bureaucracy have to do with the outgrowth of "administrative law" and "rulemaking" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_l... https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32240.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32240.html). Once a bill has been signed into law, the rulemaking process begins. These are where the actual details of a new law are hashed out. A bill may designate $X in funding for a program. Which contractors receive those contracts, hours of service, the amount of paperwork required, etc. are all handled at the administrative level. And it's certainly the case that for 99.9% of citizens, no one is submitting public comments during this period, and the input of ordinary people is often lacking. So when the IRS makes a free-file options for taxes difficult to use, in large part due to Intuit's lobbying (https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-f...), this is not the result of a carve-out or giveaway spelled out in actual legislation's text. It's the result of an actor exploiting the opacity of the rulemaking and administrative law practices.
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
The computerization of bureaucracy is probably another big part - since the people processing paperwork have more productive ways to manage the information and processes they require, they can mandate more of it without falling over and requiring clerks that they cannot afford to hire.
sjg007 5y ago
No it's not because they are lawyers. The paperwork is designed to reduce benefit claims and overall cost. Usually it is the state doing this to the letter of the law so that they can get Federal monies. PPP loans for example, easy to get.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Every year it blows my mind that I probably spend >24 hours of my life trying to get medical bills covered by insurance that I pay >$12,000 a year for. I wouldn't accept that type of service from something I pay $1,000 a year for... but we're stuck with it. It's absurd that healthcare is a debate in the US. The productivity loss alone from managing health insurance must be astronomical. I also have to waste my doctor's time and their office's billing department. I also have to pay my mental health therapist out of pocket because I had a long-standing relationship and they "retired" from accepting insurance and the plethora of paperwork, problems, and diagnosis requirements they have to put up with as a provider (fortunately they met me halfway, I couldn't afford it as a new client).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

minikites 5y ago

>It has in many cases purposefully made the system difficult, shifting the burden of public administration onto individuals and discouraging millions of Americans from seeking aid. This is pretty much it, the design of these programs are this way on purpose to discourage people from taking advantage of these benefits. >The United States government—whether controlled by Democrats, with their love of too-complicated-by-half, means-tested policy solutions; or Republicans, with their love of paperwork-as-punishment; or both, with their collective neglect of the implementation and maintenance of government programs Democrats love means-testing so they don't fall victim to attacks from Republicans about "welfare queens" and government waste. Republicans don't believe the government should provide aid to begin with, so their motivations are more clear. There's no real cohort in the US government who believe that benefits should be simple and universal, because they get dismissed as crazed socialists/communists. I see the future of the USA as dominated by the current gridlock until climate change and climate refugees cause the whole political system to break down. Predictions past that point are useless, kind of like a depressing version of the AI singularity.

caseyross 5y ago

Another way to think about it is as time pollution. It's not a perfect analogy, but you can imagine the US government as a factory that slowly churns out "Benefit Programs", and in the process emits a large amount of pollution onto nearby homes. This factory could invest in polluting less, but that would cost money, and would require it to increase the price of the product. And it so happens that the factory's customers are very price conscious! The customers are willing to accept a lot of pollution, because their goal is primarily to go back to their bosses and say "Look how cheaply I got all these Benefit Programs!" None of the participants in the production or buying processes have much incentive for the factory to clean up its act, so accordingly it keeps spewing out pollution onto people who, even if they hate it, can't really do anything to stop it (besides moving away from their homes). One possible tactic for resolving these negative externalities is to give the factory owners and customers skin in the game by making them live right next to the factory. In real world terms, this would be something like requiring lawmakers to live entirely off of government benefits, instead of any other income or wealth they possess. Another possible tactic is establishment of a universal basic income, which (in theory) could replace every other welfare program and thereby remove a lot of potential for time pollution. TL;DR: The incentives for US government administered benefits are all in favor of shifting work away from the government and onto individual citizens, as a way of saving money.