3 ms·

> It would be trivial (!) to chop off half of the tax without a net detriment to society. If you have a good trivial plan on how to do it why do you believe it

by piva00 2y ago

> It would be trivial (!) to chop off half of the tax without a net detriment to society. If you have a good trivial plan on how to do it why do you believe it hasn't been done yet? Political complexities arise quickly, as neat and simple as you might see the solution there's whole systems behind that make it less trivial, systems with needs that have to be catered for to any change to happen. > A bug chunk is sent far away, another chunk is used to fund the system itself. Is the chunk being sent far away really useless? Or cutting it off will have outsized consequences after the fact that you aren't able to predict? How do you go about finding that out and being able to balance what's necessary if consequences would appear after 10-30 years? The system needs to work, it needs funding, what are you proposing? To just cut it all off? I think you haven't thought deeply enough about this issue if you think it's trivial to solve.

bun_terminator 2y ago
You write under the assumption that the people in charge have the goal to efficiently use resources to give back utility to the citizens who fund the system. That is quite naive IMO, with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I would be suggesting obviously massive changes in policy. Which is (I kid you not) illegal for me to say because there are several pieces of legislation in Germany that protect the government from critics. In particular there are laws to punish people who want to change the status quo. The part I am allowed to say out loud is that the number of people employed by the state has to be drastically reduced. Their legendary low workload is an obvious sign that they're being employed only to ensure their vote. Also some of the wages in the public sector are ridiculous and need to be almost halved to put them back into reality. But regardless of the specifics: It would still be very straightforward and obvious to anyone who has ever taken a cursory look at the national finances.
- piva00 2y ago
  > You write under the assumption that the people in charge have the goal to efficiently use resources to give back utility to the citizens who fund the system. That is quite naive IMO, with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Not at all, I'm writing under the assumption that to change the status quo there's a huge political issue underlying it which is the core tenet for why it's hard to change and not trivial at all. It's trivial if we ignore this reality, it's absolutely not trivial when you have to consider the political ramifications of getting rid of a huge chunk of public servants, changing stuff under a democracy is never trivial exactly because of the issue you mention: votes. If you harm a part of the population in most cases you'll lose their votes, which is a counterbalance for "trivial" changes that would cause some harm without any sort of pandering to those voters to not be left behind.
  - bun_terminator 2y ago
    Fair take. I don't expect this to change ever and actually keep getting worse. In that way, "trivial" it is only if we'd be living in an utopia or meritocracy where doing the right thing is what motivates action. That being said the far bigger chunk of the money is not lost onto public servants, but to other parts I won't talk about. But changing that in reality also faces different pushback.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > That being said the far bigger chunk of the money is not lost onto public servants, but to other parts I won't talk about. But changing that in reality also faces different pushback. I have a feeling you might mean to the EU in general. It's not like Germany doesn't benefit tremendously from the EU if that's your point.
      - bun_terminator 2y ago
        While I would absolutely leave the EU the second I would become Germanys benevolent overlord, it's not yet illegal to speak out such thoughts. But I do believe that the EU is a massive net cost to Germany. Take the target2 balances alone
        piva00 2y ago
        Please, show me any sources where the EU is a net cost to Germany. You need to substantiate that opinion because it's the most baffling one so far. Germany both benefits from having access to a huge market to export its goods as well as being able to recruit workers from almost anywhere in the EU due to salaries being higher than most others. Those are just the basics, apart from that Germany has always benefited from the Euro since it made its exports more attractive to the global markets than if Germany had its own currency which would be stronger than what the Euro is. The monetary policy of the ECB has tremendously benefited Germany over decades, just looking at the balances doesn't tell much of any story, I'd love if you'd expand on your arguments rather than leaving to me the work to understand what exactly you are trying to say because it simply doesn't make any sense. The only illegal thought I can imagine in Germany is being a Nazi, I really do not understand what you are trying to hide behind "I cannot speak because it's illegal to say it". You can speak out against immigrants, you have a whole political party just based on that alone, so it isn't that. What is it then?

by piva00 2y ago

bun_terminator 2y ago

You write under the assumption that the people in charge have the goal to efficiently use resources to give back utility to the citizens who fund the system. That is quite naive IMO, with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I would be suggesting obviously massive changes in policy. Which is (I kid you not) illegal for me to say because there are several pieces of legislation in Germany that protect the government from critics. In particular there are laws to punish people who want to change the status quo. The part I am allowed to say out loud is that the number of people employed by the state has to be drastically reduced. Their legendary low workload is an obvious sign that they're being employed only to ensure their vote. Also some of the wages in the public sector are ridiculous and need to be almost halved to put them back into reality. But regardless of the specifics: It would still be very straightforward and obvious to anyone who has ever taken a cursory look at the national finances.

piva00 2y ago
> You write under the assumption that the people in charge have the goal to efficiently use resources to give back utility to the citizens who fund the system. That is quite naive IMO, with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Not at all, I'm writing under the assumption that to change the status quo there's a huge political issue underlying it which is the core tenet for why it's hard to change and not trivial at all. It's trivial if we ignore this reality, it's absolutely not trivial when you have to consider the political ramifications of getting rid of a huge chunk of public servants, changing stuff under a democracy is never trivial exactly because of the issue you mention: votes. If you harm a part of the population in most cases you'll lose their votes, which is a counterbalance for "trivial" changes that would cause some harm without any sort of pandering to those voters to not be left behind.
- bun_terminator 2y ago
  Fair take. I don't expect this to change ever and actually keep getting worse. In that way, "trivial" it is only if we'd be living in an utopia or meritocracy where doing the right thing is what motivates action. That being said the far bigger chunk of the money is not lost onto public servants, but to other parts I won't talk about. But changing that in reality also faces different pushback.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > That being said the far bigger chunk of the money is not lost onto public servants, but to other parts I won't talk about. But changing that in reality also faces different pushback. I have a feeling you might mean to the EU in general. It's not like Germany doesn't benefit tremendously from the EU if that's your point.
    - bun_terminator 2y ago
      While I would absolutely leave the EU the second I would become Germanys benevolent overlord, it's not yet illegal to speak out such thoughts. But I do believe that the EU is a massive net cost to Germany. Take the target2 balances alone
      - piva00 2y ago
        Please, show me any sources where the EU is a net cost to Germany. You need to substantiate that opinion because it's the most baffling one so far. Germany both benefits from having access to a huge market to export its goods as well as being able to recruit workers from almost anywhere in the EU due to salaries being higher than most others. Those are just the basics, apart from that Germany has always benefited from the Euro since it made its exports more attractive to the global markets than if Germany had its own currency which would be stronger than what the Euro is. The monetary policy of the ECB has tremendously benefited Germany over decades, just looking at the balances doesn't tell much of any story, I'd love if you'd expand on your arguments rather than leaving to me the work to understand what exactly you are trying to say because it simply doesn't make any sense. The only illegal thought I can imagine in Germany is being a Nazi, I really do not understand what you are trying to hide behind "I cannot speak because it's illegal to say it". You can speak out against immigrants, you have a whole political party just based on that alone, so it isn't that. What is it then?