My conservative expectation is that we all have to start contributing a lot more over the next few decades if we want to maintain our standard of living, otherwise it will just gradually get worse. I hope I’m wrong.
There are so many valuable services provided by the US federal government. People just take it all for granted.
A few counties away, the library district said without a tax increase, they’ll have to shut down. “No new taxes” carried the day. Library shut down. Now folks are howling. And again it’s the non-voting kids that suffer.
If this is the behavior of folks about issues affecting their neighbors, in their own town, I’m not too optimistic what sort of support we could see for any kind of longer-term issue, especially if it isn’t atop the media cycle.
So I don't pay Israel's defense budget, but that money is reallocated evenly to everything else.
I find it hard to believe a meaningful number of people would opt out of libraries and schools assuming their overall tax burden is unchanged.
I might be too pessimistic though, I tend towards liking the idea but I'm concerned about the changes it could cause.
Empty nesters or childless people will funnel their tax money to things like parks, fire trucks, and other things.
Obviously, this was supposed to be the job of the person you elected.
But in 2024 we definitely have the technology to let people vote on smaller units of issues that they care about.
I would be completely in support of people self-allocating their taxes as long as (1) the distribution still had to add up to 100% so you can’t under contribute and (2) government offices capped their income and redistributed excess to the general funds instead of letting some feel-good departments waste money they didn’t need but were allocated.
Members of Congress often propose things like this because it sounds good but in practice it's meaningless.
Suppose that Democrats don't want to pay for bombs and Republicans don't want to pay for makework jobs, so they both say they don't want their tax money to be used for this. Then the government takes the money from Democrats they didn't spend on bombs and uses it to make up the shortfall in the makework jobs programs and takes the money Republicans didn't spend on makework jobs and uses it to make up the shortfall in the military, and nothing changes at all.
The only way it could actually do something is if you got the money back you didn't want spent on that thing, instead of letting the government spend it on something else. But then most people would do that with large chunks of government spending because they'd rather the money than the programs.
That other stuff doesn't even cost a significant amount of money by comparison and could be well-funded from the savings.
The government doesn't lack for revenue, it lacks for efficiency.
If you go to early Reddit, you will see it a staunchly pro market, anti tax stronghold - as was HN.
For eons, “competition” was the mantra along with “greed is good”. Many people who own wealth reached there with that ethos.
No one has to “contribute more”. That’s the opportunity for whichever bright eye person decides to take advantage of the gap in the market.
If you want a counter to this dogma -
1) Yes. Market inefficiencies should be open as opportunities to the industrious
2) No. Not all market inefficiencies are the same. for example, Public goods (police, military) are not better off with multiple companies. Insurance is similar.
3) Lobbying for convenient rules, lobbying for weakened regulators has given far more advantage to firms, which then use that wealth to become rent seekers. They dont need to innovate, because they can litigate.
4) “more regulation means higher compliance costs” was a new one I saw. Guess what - if your firm uses contracts, that’s a compliance cost. Why not just do it by a hand shake? Save your lawyer fees.
Compliance costs ensure fair play between entities of unequal strength. You can trade on your competitive advantage, not on the tertiary strengths, such as a firms ability to pay for a better legal team.
Edit: Soap box - This is about Personal Responsibility.
The place where most people agree today, is the desire for a fair fight.
How can I reasonably defend the idea of personal responsibility, in something like the sale of NINJA loans.
If firms field trained, resourced, networked sales people to sell loans to people who have a negligible chance of even understanding what they are getting into, then how do I reasonably bring up personal responsibility ?
Can people reasonably be expected to read all the contracts they have signed? ( Netflix, Uber, gmail, phone, etc.)
Algorithmic ads are fine tuned to grab your attention and keep you online. There is more money spent on UI UX research than the GDP of some global south countries.
Forget America for a second - imagine how regulators in smaller economies handle these things. Heck, that’s if they even have time to worry about these things.
One of the big problems here, and the lobbyists do this on purpose, is that they promote the false notion that the issue is the quantity of regulations and not their substance. Quantity can be an issue when the number of regulations becomes excessive and their sheer number thwarts competition by creating high barriers to entry, but "incumbents want fewer regulations" is not only misleading but typically the opposite of what really happens.
Incumbents want to get rid of regulations that protect competition and add regulations that inhibit it. What we need, of course, is the opposite. Which isn't as simple as "make number of regulations go up/down", it matters very much which ones and what they do.
> Compliance costs ensure fair play between entities of unequal strength.
This is completely the opposite. Compliance costs are generally fixed costs, i.e. every entity has to hire a lawyer and pay them $250,000. For a megacorp this is negligible and they don't even notice, for a small business they're now out of the market because that amount of expense would bankrupt them. The more rules you have, the higher that number gets. This is the sense in which the absolute number of rules matters.
But it still depends what they are. Even if you only have a couple of rules, the incumbents will want rules that only they can comply with. Conversely, you can hypothetically have a lot of rules and still have them easy to comply with, though this is certainly easier said than done. What you really want is to have a small number of rules, but the right rules -- the ones the incumbents don't want and their smaller competitors do.
Just to be clear, you are quoting typical lobbyist talking points here? I definitely disagree with such a simplification.
I agree with the fact that incumbents want to make it easier to make money.
> This is completely the opposite …
Yes, I am in firm agreement that the content, quality and enforceability of the regulation matters.
That said, I used contracts as an example, specifically to combat this common reduction: “Compliance cost price smaller businesses out of the market, so they are bad for competition and the little guy.”
Writing up a contract is more expensive than trusting someone’s word, it is fair to say that having no contracts would enable more small businesses to flourish (lower costs).
Many things reduce costs, however firms / businesses having to bear compliance costs is not bad for the polity.
But now we're back to "what the regulation is matters more than how many there are". There can exist rules that benefit small companies, obviously. But if the rules every company has to comply with can fill three shelves at the library, this is not going to benefit small companies because they will be unable to operate.
> Many things reduce costs, however firms / businesses having to bear compliance costs is not bad for the polity.
It depends what they are.
One of most insidious is regulations that are ostensibly neutral, i.e. there is a societal benefit of approximately $100 per company on average and to get it the rule is going to impose costs of approximately $100 on the average company. The books are full of these because they provide some ostensible benefit and the cost isn't even being calculated. Nobody fights against them too hard because they're approximately breakeven.
Except that each of them adds $100 in compliance costs to every company, and there are ten thousand of them, so now every company in that industry has a million dollars in compliance costs, which small companies can't sustain. So the rules on their own provide neither benefit nor cost to society, but impair competition, and that has a societal cost.
you and me are back to this.
Most arguments dont get this far, unless these answers are first furnished. Which was the spirit and intent of my parent comment.
And I agree, good regulation is better than absurd regulation.
> ostensibly neutral… small companies can’t sustain
Sure.
The austerity policies of the neoliberal turn has already caused standards of living among the less fortunate to drop over the last few decades already. The 2008 crisis is when it started to impact the middle class and we're still feeling the impacts 16+ years later.
Federal outlays are not granular enough and increasing Federal outlays is pretty meaningless.