5 ms·

I mean, I'd also argue that the definition of a "bad tax" is notoriously difficult to agree on. For example: https://x.com/NEWSMAX/status/1937470443168182386

I mean, I'd also argue that the definition of a "bad tax" is notoriously difficult to agree on. For example: https://x.com/NEWSMAX/status/1937470443168182386 https://x.com/NEWSMAX/status/1937470443168182386 > A government agency spending $300 million in taxpayer dollars to produce sterilized flies sounds like a dream scenario for a DOGE team looking to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. A year later: https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/business/what-consumers-should-know-about-screwworm https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/business/what-consumers-shoul... > Grocery shoppers could get hit with higher prices if the screwworm cases turn into a full-blown outbreak. That could cost $3 billion across the Southwest, according to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Good tax, or bad tax? Returning to your question, though: Yes, I assert the cost of troubleshooting a "bad tax" may exceed the benefits of having addressed it.

groundzeros2015 5mo ago
You’re weasling. We don’t have to treat taxes as a pool we can look at the pros and cons of each one. Taxes are not benevolent and good by nature. You seem to be suggesting here it’s impossible or too costly to weigh pros or cons. So I would not consider you for an administrative position
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  You're avoiding the points. "Look at the pros and cons of each one" is an enormous handwave; I've provided very clear evidence of our inability to do that successfully in a very topical and concrete case.
  - groundzeros2015 5mo ago
    > You seem to be suggesting here it’s impossible or too costly to weigh pros or cons. Sounds like you agree.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Yes, I agree, at least in part. We are tweaking a multi-trillion dollar system impacting hundreds of millions of people directly and billions indirectly. The impacts of those tweaks take years or decades to (imperfectly!) assess. Many of the tweaks and their impacts are a matter of deep partisan and academic contention.
      - groundzeros2015 5mo ago
        The system is incomprehensible complex and unknowable, but it’s probably correct and can’t be improved. What about new tax proposals? Shouldn’t we then reject them all to avoid butterfly effects in this carefully tuned ideal?
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        No one said it can't be improved. I'm noting that our political system seems to generate lots of folks going "this is wasteful spending!" when it's… not. That results in challenges in determining what's a "bad tax" and what's a "good tax", and the consequences of cutting programs may take time to show up.
  - satvikpendem 5mo ago
    What DOGE did is not one I'd consider proper review, so bringing them up doesn't necessarily help your point. There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > What DOGE did is not one I'd consider proper review… This illustrates very well how difficult it will be to agree on good/bad tax. > There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way. If you've found one, can I come to the Nobel ceremony?
      - satvikpendem 5mo ago
        Sure, although it doesn't require Nobel level effort to understand.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        Go on. What are these practical "ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way" options?
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        It is already done today. Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. Are some of them politically motivated or have academic disagreements? Sure, all people have personal politics and biases. But that is better than throwing up ones hands and saying we should accept all bad taxes because good ones also exist. By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. We have those, and they disagree almost as much as the general public does. Economists get plenty partisan; they're human! > By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right? No. But I'm deeply skeptical of "bad tax!" assessments from someone who's calling random people Marxists on this thread!

groundzeros2015 5mo ago

You’re weasling. We don’t have to treat taxes as a pool we can look at the pros and cons of each one. Taxes are not benevolent and good by nature. You seem to be suggesting here it’s impossible or too costly to weigh pros or cons. So I would not consider you for an administrative position

ceejayoz 5mo ago
You're avoiding the points. "Look at the pros and cons of each one" is an enormous handwave; I've provided very clear evidence of our inability to do that successfully in a very topical and concrete case.
- groundzeros2015 5mo ago
  > You seem to be suggesting here it’s impossible or too costly to weigh pros or cons. Sounds like you agree.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Yes, I agree, at least in part. We are tweaking a multi-trillion dollar system impacting hundreds of millions of people directly and billions indirectly. The impacts of those tweaks take years or decades to (imperfectly!) assess. Many of the tweaks and their impacts are a matter of deep partisan and academic contention.
    - groundzeros2015 5mo ago
      The system is incomprehensible complex and unknowable, but it’s probably correct and can’t be improved. What about new tax proposals? Shouldn’t we then reject them all to avoid butterfly effects in this carefully tuned ideal?
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        No one said it can't be improved. I'm noting that our political system seems to generate lots of folks going "this is wasteful spending!" when it's… not. That results in challenges in determining what's a "bad tax" and what's a "good tax", and the consequences of cutting programs may take time to show up.
- satvikpendem 5mo ago
  What DOGE did is not one I'd consider proper review, so bringing them up doesn't necessarily help your point. There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > What DOGE did is not one I'd consider proper review… This illustrates very well how difficult it will be to agree on good/bad tax. > There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way. If you've found one, can I come to the Nobel ceremony?
    - satvikpendem 5mo ago
      Sure, although it doesn't require Nobel level effort to understand.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        Go on. What are these practical "ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way" options?
        satvikpendem 5mo ago
        It is already done today. Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. Are some of them politically motivated or have academic disagreements? Sure, all people have personal politics and biases. But that is better than throwing up ones hands and saying we should accept all bad taxes because good ones also exist. By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. We have those, and they disagree almost as much as the general public does. Economists get plenty partisan; they're human! > By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right? No. But I'm deeply skeptical of "bad tax!" assessments from someone who's calling random people Marxists on this thread!