3 ms·

every tax discussion i've ever read treats taxes in the abstract without spending. The assumption is "how do we raise as much tax as possible". When you actual

every tax discussion i've ever read treats taxes in the abstract without spending. The assumption is "how do we raise as much tax as possible". When you actually learn about public agency spending, you'll see that 2/3 of it is completely unnecessary. I'm not saying companies are any better, but they generally don't have the mandate to take your house from you if you are not a customer. Focus on the spending first, and make sure it's essential. Then figure out how to fund it. If you can get spending scope reduced by 90% (where it was before FDR) , you'll find the tax situation solves itself. You won't have to invent taxes on every activity.

adverbly 1y ago
I think I disagree with this? From pragmatic standpoint there needs to be some spending and it obviously makes sense to think about how best to raise revenue. Does that make sense?
- tonymet 1y ago
  if spending is 90% lower than today, coming up with revenue is trivial. Until 16th amendment, Federal revenue was from excise tax. Income, fees, capital gains were not necessary. So degree matters. Of course you're going to have to keep inventing new tax revenue streams if spending is 6-10x more than it should be. We may keep the property tax, but talking about tax revenue absent of spending is like talking about how to deal with a headache caused by a nail in the head, without addressing the nail.
  - adverbly 1y ago
    Sounds like we agree. Parent said this: > Focus on the spending first, and make sure it's essential. Then figure out how to fund it. Which is what I disagreed with. There is no "sequence" to this where one comes first. You need to look at both in parallel. Its entirely possible that one could be more troublesome than another, but you still need to look at both!
    - tonymet 1y ago
      sure but here's what happens in practice. The agency raises the revenue, and raises the spending to meet the new revenue. I'll give an example. My local city proposed creating a separate taxing authority for the fire department . The new authority would get an additional share of the property tax. Meanwhile the city would keep the share they were getting beforehand, and spend it on other things. My point is that abstract / theoretical approaches to taxing don't account for the human factor. The human factor is that people just want to make their job easy, and if they get more money, they will spend it.
Brian_K_White 1y ago
As though every single dollar of public spending didn't return about 30x in ultimate value vs the best you can get from those same dollars in your pocket, even with the waste. As though everyone agrees which bits are even the waste.
- twoodfin 1y ago
  What research did you have in mind that would suggest anything like a 30X fiscal multiplier? Public spending efficiency is generally understood to range not that far from 1.00, depending on current economic conditions: Better in a recession, worse in an expansion.

adverbly 1y ago

I think I disagree with this? From pragmatic standpoint there needs to be some spending and it obviously makes sense to think about how best to raise revenue. Does that make sense?

tonymet 1y ago
if spending is 90% lower than today, coming up with revenue is trivial. Until 16th amendment, Federal revenue was from excise tax. Income, fees, capital gains were not necessary. So degree matters. Of course you're going to have to keep inventing new tax revenue streams if spending is 6-10x more than it should be. We may keep the property tax, but talking about tax revenue absent of spending is like talking about how to deal with a headache caused by a nail in the head, without addressing the nail.
- adverbly 1y ago
  Sounds like we agree. Parent said this: > Focus on the spending first, and make sure it's essential. Then figure out how to fund it. Which is what I disagreed with. There is no "sequence" to this where one comes first. You need to look at both in parallel. Its entirely possible that one could be more troublesome than another, but you still need to look at both!
  - tonymet 1y ago
    sure but here's what happens in practice. The agency raises the revenue, and raises the spending to meet the new revenue. I'll give an example. My local city proposed creating a separate taxing authority for the fire department . The new authority would get an additional share of the property tax. Meanwhile the city would keep the share they were getting beforehand, and spend it on other things. My point is that abstract / theoretical approaches to taxing don't account for the human factor. The human factor is that people just want to make their job easy, and if they get more money, they will spend it.

Brian_K_White 1y ago

As though every single dollar of public spending didn't return about 30x in ultimate value vs the best you can get from those same dollars in your pocket, even with the waste. As though everyone agrees which bits are even the waste.

twoodfin 1y ago
What research did you have in mind that would suggest anything like a 30X fiscal multiplier? Public spending efficiency is generally understood to range not that far from 1.00, depending on current economic conditions: Better in a recession, worse in an expansion.