3 ms·
> In your example the government is dropping the ball on solving the homeless problem. But I'd rather live in a world where at least my government tries to solv
by ozzythecat 5y ago
> In your example the government is dropping the ball on solving the homeless problem. But I'd rather live in a world where at least my government tries to solve problems, rather than one where it says, "well, we can't do a perfect job, so we might as well do nothing."
The homelessness call out was meant to be an example. It’s not the only inefficiency. My own city has had more and more innovative taxes - on both businesses, and on individuals. As a tax payer, taxes are increasing for me, yet I don’t see any meaningful improvement. And I’m not talking about a 6 month or 2 year timespan but 10-15 years. In the same time, the government apparatus has gotten larger and larger. There are more ways the government has found to extract revenue from workers. But what are we getting in return? Our public schools aren’t great. Teacher salaries are a joke.
Bridges and roads require maintenance, but these contracts seemingly go to specific bidders who are on a revolving door - they deliver such a low standard service that we’re doing the same repairs a year later.
There’s a mixture of corruption and incompetence. But the government has unlimited authority to increase taxes, giving the appearance they’re doing so to help the less fortunate. In reality, it’s basically an industry of jobs that doesn’t have to compete. If they had to compete, they would have failed as a business a very long time ago.
- alecst 5y agoWould you mind saying what city you're talking about? It's a bit alarming that a city could be steadily increasing tax rates while offering almost nothing in return.