3 ms·

At what cost? Are we counting lives lost, QALYs, who defines the cost-benefit. I can free up a lot of budget by sacking the entire armed forces and selling the

by ggm 2y ago

At what cost? Are we counting lives lost, QALYs, who defines the cost-benefit. I can free up a lot of budget by sacking the entire armed forces and selling the jets to Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. "freeing up a significant fraction of the budget" is not consequence free. If he forces the health insurance industry to reform and extract a sane profit margin above cost of service, he deserves a medal. If he wipes out USAID and stops his competitors being funded for battery car programmes he secured for himself in times past.. Less such. "waste" is a very emotive term for government spending. Many economists laugh at the belief spending less money is net advantageous as a thing in itself: money makes the world go round. Sometimes you want it spent more than you want it saved.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Presumably positive lives and QALYs. That's the whole point of cutting taxes for many people. I would rather be spending my money on my health than going without while the fed pisses it away on handouts, corruption, and incompetence. I want to run the heater so my kids aren't cold but cant afford it. Meanwhile my mayor is using my tax dollars to buy 200 home depot sheds for 800k each from a donor. Yes, the point is spending money, just by the people who earned it.
- ggm 2y ago
  I can't rebut this without being insulting, or dismissive of the situation you have to live in. I am sorry you are living in such constraint. I continue to believe you are wrong "less tax" will fix your problem but I can say that from the comfort of an economy with a fully hypothicated medicare tax, and something approaching universal health coverage. I do not believe paying less tax will fix the kind of cynical systematic corrupt behaviour of your mayor, and other tiers of government.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I don't think paying less tax will fix the corrupt behavior of my mayor either, but it would limit my exposure and loss. Fundamentally, the urge to eliminate taxes and reduce the size of the government is a vote of no confidence. Not just now,but permanently. It's not a vote for reform. I don't think the government leadership has my best interests at heart. I think it would happily take everything I have and leave me to starve in the street if it could.
    - wpm 2y ago
      You certainly probably feel that, but I do not believe you thought your way into this position.
      - xvector 2y ago
        I would argue it is you that has not seen the balance sheets, absurdly high line items, or worked for a government contractor - else you would 100% agree with his stance on taxation. A huge chunk of government spending is a horrendous waste/scam and you will likely never understand this unless you take the initiative to look at the spending breakdowns or actually spend a bit of time at a government contractor.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        No, I didn't think my way into it. I initially thought myself into thinking efficient government was possible, then I watched the government callously destroy friends and family. Watched them be eminent domained without compensation. Watched their businesses and retirement plans capriciously taken away, often for no practical reason. These real world observations demonstrated my theoretical model was flawed.
    - OxO4 2y ago
      > I don't think the government leadership has my best interests at heart And for-profit companies have your best interest at heart? With government services you can at least optimize for goals other than profit.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Wanting to cut whatever tax is going to those sheds has nothing to do with for-profit companies. They are not the alternative. The alternative is not having the tax.
      - xvector 2y ago
        > you can at least optimize for goals other than profit. The goal should be providing the service I want for the least tax dollars possible. The government is horrendous at doing this. There is no performance or competitive incentive.
beej71 2y ago
USAID is a great example of saving pennies by spending dollars.
xvector 2y ago
The only QALYs that should matter to the US Gov't are American QALYs. I don't need to be funding $50M worth of condoms to be sent to Gaza. That's a "them" problem, and while there might be second order effects to a population explosion there, I honestly don't care.

by ggm 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Presumably positive lives and QALYs. That's the whole point of cutting taxes for many people. I would rather be spending my money on my health than going without while the fed pisses it away on handouts, corruption, and incompetence. I want to run the heater so my kids aren't cold but cant afford it. Meanwhile my mayor is using my tax dollars to buy 200 home depot sheds for 800k each from a donor. Yes, the point is spending money, just by the people who earned it.

ggm 2y ago
I can't rebut this without being insulting, or dismissive of the situation you have to live in. I am sorry you are living in such constraint. I continue to believe you are wrong "less tax" will fix your problem but I can say that from the comfort of an economy with a fully hypothicated medicare tax, and something approaching universal health coverage. I do not believe paying less tax will fix the kind of cynical systematic corrupt behaviour of your mayor, and other tiers of government.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I don't think paying less tax will fix the corrupt behavior of my mayor either, but it would limit my exposure and loss. Fundamentally, the urge to eliminate taxes and reduce the size of the government is a vote of no confidence. Not just now,but permanently. It's not a vote for reform. I don't think the government leadership has my best interests at heart. I think it would happily take everything I have and leave me to starve in the street if it could.
  - wpm 2y ago
    You certainly probably feel that, but I do not believe you thought your way into this position.
    - xvector 2y ago
      I would argue it is you that has not seen the balance sheets, absurdly high line items, or worked for a government contractor - else you would 100% agree with his stance on taxation. A huge chunk of government spending is a horrendous waste/scam and you will likely never understand this unless you take the initiative to look at the spending breakdowns or actually spend a bit of time at a government contractor.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      No, I didn't think my way into it. I initially thought myself into thinking efficient government was possible, then I watched the government callously destroy friends and family. Watched them be eminent domained without compensation. Watched their businesses and retirement plans capriciously taken away, often for no practical reason. These real world observations demonstrated my theoretical model was flawed.
  - OxO4 2y ago
    > I don't think the government leadership has my best interests at heart And for-profit companies have your best interest at heart? With government services you can at least optimize for goals other than profit.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Wanting to cut whatever tax is going to those sheds has nothing to do with for-profit companies. They are not the alternative. The alternative is not having the tax.
    - xvector 2y ago
      > you can at least optimize for goals other than profit. The goal should be providing the service I want for the least tax dollars possible. The government is horrendous at doing this. There is no performance or competitive incentive.

beej71 2y ago

USAID is a great example of saving pennies by spending dollars.

xvector 2y ago

The only QALYs that should matter to the US Gov't are American QALYs. I don't need to be funding $50M worth of condoms to be sent to Gaza. That's a "them" problem, and while there might be second order effects to a population explosion there, I honestly don't care.