10 ms·

Anecdotally, one thing I observed as a lowly enlisted soldier is the need to panic spend money at the end of the fiscal year to make sure the budget next year w

Anecdotally, one thing I observed as a lowly enlisted soldier is the need to panic spend money at the end of the fiscal year to make sure the budget next year wouldn't be smaller. Maybe we could start with practices like these.

creato 2y ago
The same thing happens in corporate budgeting too. Seems to be an artifact of big organizations.
mjevans 2y ago
Sadly, it never works. If someone is efficient one year, the money will be cut and then it won't be there when it IS really needed. It can't be banked, it can't be returned as credits. Human nature is why we can't have nice things. This is why I believe the scope of work should be clearly defined. Requests for funding submitted and approved with relation to that work. Then square up the taxes required based on what was spent, adjust up and down automatically. Congress needs to vote to make that funding come out of the Rich (higher relative % of wealth the more taxed), to largely exempt anyone under an average (E.G. 10X poverty line is where taxes even START), and treat excess property as an Investment while exempting average ownership (E.G. a similar average for 'housing ownership' and 'transport ownership' value).
- edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  I don't see why this odd pathology is essential to human nature.
  - mjevans 2y ago
    It's a feature of Capitalism. "Waste" that is trimmed one year becomes the new bar "This can run at X". Allocating additional resources requires far higher push than taking back something not spent. Yet some years require more resources. What if there are more natural disasters? What if there's an economic downturn and more people need help? What if companies fail and expected taxes are not paid? What if it's time to replace durable goods that have reached the end of their projected or useful life? (E.G. Some disgruntled person came to court with a shotgun and fired at all the computers; and oh BTW they're both broke and in jail so there's no cash to be had.) You can see the very reluctance and assumptions in other posts in reply. They assume there are no audits, no oversight in the system. That the cursory pointer towards a larger process was the ENTIRE process which they then attack.
- wisty 2y ago
  Bribery, conflicts of interest, etc are IMO similar. We don't let a manager give a family member a juicy contract without some oversight, and these corrupt budget games should be treated in a similar way. Everyone knows it's rampant, damaging, and totally ignored. Using up money before it "goes away" and padding budgets should be expressly forbidden. Yes it's sometimes impossible to prove if it's happening, but you can say it's a standard and tell people to follow it, and catch blatant cases. Plenty of rules and standards are hard to prove.
thatguy0900 2y ago
Isn't that the exact sort of thing that happens when the government tries to make huge scale budget cuts? The only reason they do that is because the government is trying to cut their budget in an unintelligent and untargeted way to begin with

creato 2y ago

The same thing happens in corporate budgeting too. Seems to be an artifact of big organizations.

mjevans 2y ago

Sadly, it never works. If someone is efficient one year, the money will be cut and then it won't be there when it IS really needed. It can't be banked, it can't be returned as credits. Human nature is why we can't have nice things. This is why I believe the scope of work should be clearly defined. Requests for funding submitted and approved with relation to that work. Then square up the taxes required based on what was spent, adjust up and down automatically. Congress needs to vote to make that funding come out of the Rich (higher relative % of wealth the more taxed), to largely exempt anyone under an average (E.G. 10X poverty line is where taxes even START), and treat excess property as an Investment while exempting average ownership (E.G. a similar average for 'housing ownership' and 'transport ownership' value).

edflsafoiewq 2y ago
I don't see why this odd pathology is essential to human nature.
- mjevans 2y ago
  It's a feature of Capitalism. "Waste" that is trimmed one year becomes the new bar "This can run at X". Allocating additional resources requires far higher push than taking back something not spent. Yet some years require more resources. What if there are more natural disasters? What if there's an economic downturn and more people need help? What if companies fail and expected taxes are not paid? What if it's time to replace durable goods that have reached the end of their projected or useful life? (E.G. Some disgruntled person came to court with a shotgun and fired at all the computers; and oh BTW they're both broke and in jail so there's no cash to be had.) You can see the very reluctance and assumptions in other posts in reply. They assume there are no audits, no oversight in the system. That the cursory pointer towards a larger process was the ENTIRE process which they then attack.
wisty 2y ago
Bribery, conflicts of interest, etc are IMO similar. We don't let a manager give a family member a juicy contract without some oversight, and these corrupt budget games should be treated in a similar way. Everyone knows it's rampant, damaging, and totally ignored. Using up money before it "goes away" and padding budgets should be expressly forbidden. Yes it's sometimes impossible to prove if it's happening, but you can say it's a standard and tell people to follow it, and catch blatant cases. Plenty of rules and standards are hard to prove.

thatguy0900 2y ago

Isn't that the exact sort of thing that happens when the government tries to make huge scale budget cuts? The only reason they do that is because the government is trying to cut their budget in an unintelligent and untargeted way to begin with