7 ms·

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Physics has to work, organisational processes don

by lmm 2y ago

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Physics has to work, organisational processes don't - Maxwell himself wouldn't have been able to understand the travel expense rules at some organisations I've seen, and the right response isn't always to try to reverse engineer what people were thinking when they came up with this crap, sometimes you really are better off throwing it away and coming up with something reasonable from scratch.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Maxwell himself wouldn't have been able to understand the travel expense rules at some organisations I've seen, Or the tax code... >sometimes you really are better off throwing it away and coming up with something reasonable from scratch. Many people don't understand this and are totally, fully incapable of understanding this simple concept, hence all the opposition
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  Do you think it more likely that people are "incapable of understanding" or that people are intensely suspicious of what Musk's idea of a "reasonable tax code created from scratch" would be and how it would benefit Musk a lot more than everyone else? https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-tax-plan-wealthy-corporations-oil-billionaires-musk-1235107554/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    The former. My own personal view on taxes: (especially income and property tax) neither the rich nor the poor should ever pay them. So in my view it does not matter to whom it benefits the most - most likely it is going to benefit everybody musk included, I suspect though It will also mostly benefit the less well off people in society. Perhaps the most important question to ask is not who will gain - rather who stands to lose? My answer would be the career bureaucrats.
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      Without paying property tax, the rich can buy up lots of property (and land) and leave it idle, with the express purpose of squeezing everyone else into the remaining land, forcing the rent prices up, which they benefit from. Since there is a finite amount of land in a nation, that ends up being unfair. Assuming the ordinary people pay a tax of some kind, the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation. Standing back and doing nothing while the rich exploit everyone else isn't living up to that side of the tax contract. Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner. Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way? > "My answer would be the career bureaucrats" Why is this used as a slur? There's such a thing as a career diplomat, and we'd hope they would learn more about the country they were diplomat-ing in over that career - who can make things happen in the government, how the consulate can get things done, build relationships with people in power. Similar with a career bureaucrat in principle, having a head full of details about which supply chains are reliable and resilient, which people are experts in border issues or international currency issues or state laws vs. federal laws, building relationships with them.
      - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
        >the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation It's not how it pans out. >Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner. All that will disproportionately affect the poor not the rich who can actually afford the taxes. >Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way? I do. Property in one thing that I think should be equally divided among individuals, with individuals being able to use/rent in whatever manner they please within certain confines (lots of assumptions here and lots of if and buts, but it's huge discussion). >> "My answer would be the career bureaucrats" >Why is this used as a slur? It is intended to be a slur, infact the word bureaucrat itself is a slur. Being a bureaucrat is a negative skill or a parasite etc. unlike a lot of other specializations. Ofcourse exceptions may exist. Personal questions: have you done your taxes beyond simple salaried income tax? Have you bough/sold property? have you run a small/big business? have you run a payroll? Alternatively are you familiar with the amount of complexity introduced by the govt in the questions I asked you?

by lmm 2y ago

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

>Maxwell himself wouldn't have been able to understand the travel expense rules at some organisations I've seen, Or the tax code... >sometimes you really are better off throwing it away and coming up with something reasonable from scratch. Many people don't understand this and are totally, fully incapable of understanding this simple concept, hence all the opposition

jodrellblank 2y ago
Do you think it more likely that people are "incapable of understanding" or that people are intensely suspicious of what Musk's idea of a "reasonable tax code created from scratch" would be and how it would benefit Musk a lot more than everyone else? https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-tax-plan-wealthy-corporations-oil-billionaires-musk-1235107554/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  The former. My own personal view on taxes: (especially income and property tax) neither the rich nor the poor should ever pay them. So in my view it does not matter to whom it benefits the most - most likely it is going to benefit everybody musk included, I suspect though It will also mostly benefit the less well off people in society. Perhaps the most important question to ask is not who will gain - rather who stands to lose? My answer would be the career bureaucrats.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    Without paying property tax, the rich can buy up lots of property (and land) and leave it idle, with the express purpose of squeezing everyone else into the remaining land, forcing the rent prices up, which they benefit from. Since there is a finite amount of land in a nation, that ends up being unfair. Assuming the ordinary people pay a tax of some kind, the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation. Standing back and doing nothing while the rich exploit everyone else isn't living up to that side of the tax contract. Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner. Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way? > "My answer would be the career bureaucrats" Why is this used as a slur? There's such a thing as a career diplomat, and we'd hope they would learn more about the country they were diplomat-ing in over that career - who can make things happen in the government, how the consulate can get things done, build relationships with people in power. Similar with a career bureaucrat in principle, having a head full of details about which supply chains are reliable and resilient, which people are experts in border issues or international currency issues or state laws vs. federal laws, building relationships with them.
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      >the government is taking that money under the idea that they will use it to benefit the taxpayers and the overall nation It's not how it pans out. >Property taxes impose a cost to the ownership of a property which disincentivizes leaving it empty, which is better for almost everyone else except the property owner. All that will disproportionately affect the poor not the rich who can actually afford the taxes. >Do you have another solution to that, or do you not care about that in a dog-eat-dog way? I do. Property in one thing that I think should be equally divided among individuals, with individuals being able to use/rent in whatever manner they please within certain confines (lots of assumptions here and lots of if and buts, but it's huge discussion). >> "My answer would be the career bureaucrats" >Why is this used as a slur? It is intended to be a slur, infact the word bureaucrat itself is a slur. Being a bureaucrat is a negative skill or a parasite etc. unlike a lot of other specializations. Ofcourse exceptions may exist. Personal questions: have you done your taxes beyond simple salaried income tax? Have you bough/sold property? have you run a small/big business? have you run a payroll? Alternatively are you familiar with the amount of complexity introduced by the govt in the questions I asked you?