Well, I think Trump would be immediately stopped by the courts, too. Probably faster than they stopped Biden, since they've very reasonably gotten intensely skeptical of almost everything this administration does.

Partisanship aside, presidents really should obey the law. If the law is bad, the solution is to change it, not to break it. Yes, that means we need a functioning Congress, something we haven't had for quite some time, but that's still no reason to break the law.

Maybe a percent or two, but with a budget is big enough, that's still a lot of money that could be used for something else.

The point is not that any of these things individually will result in big gains. The point is that there are a lot of different small inefficiencies that add up to a bigger inefficiency.

For example, for some reason, when the IRS sent out their findings for tax exempt status, a group that I work with never got the determination letter. And the IRS had no straightforward mechanism to resend the letter. Fixing it involved hundreds of phone calls before we reached a person who could help, and then waiting for someone to print it and mail it to us. All of this stuff should be in electronic records, and it should have been trivial for us to directly get a new copy electronically from their computer systems without requiring a person at the IRS to intervene.

Every time a person has to do something because a computer lacks code to do it, that is an example of government waste. It probably isn't worth fixing all of them, because sufficiently rare things could take decades to recover the cost of coding them, but that doesn't mean that someone shouldn't triage them, catalog them, prioritize them so that the scope is fully understood, because when you do that, you may find other people coming in later and saying, "If you do that, it will save me time on related task [x]," and that might then turn out to push it into "implement this ASAP" territory. Without documenting the state of things, those discoveries won't ever get made, and nothing will improve.

And the IRS has multiple incompatible login systems that use different credentials, multiple sites that expose different parts of the same access to information about your business/charity, etc. all of which have to be maintained, resulting in massive levels of redundancy, not to mention causing massive confusion for anyone who ever has to access them, wondering why it says they don't have an account even though they had to have one to fill out previous IRS paperwork. Replacing them with different views into the same data (with access right limits, presumably) in the same online system would likely save significant money, both in terms of software maintenance costs and server operation costs.

And how much auditor time could be saved if they trained AI models on previous audits and used that as a starting point for flagging suspicious returns and/or filtering suspicious returns flagged by existing automation? I don't have any idea, but I would not be surprised if that approach eventually produced meaningful long-term savings.

And every time they send out tax forms, what manual processes have to happen to distribute advance copies to companies like TurboTax, and how much time would be saved if we had a centralized, modern electronic version of all of the forms, rather than PDFs, with an open source implementation, complete with code to populate one form from another, etc.? Maybe it would cost more initially, but would save money in some other areas, like making it easier for auditors to recompute the taxes after fixing errors in data entry. I'm not sure, but these are the sorts of efficiency wins that should be looked at.

So in that one division alone, there are glaringly obvious inefficiencies that, if fixed, could result in considerable cost reduction. Similarly, every time you deal with someone at the Social Security Administration or (at the state level) the DMV and they tell you that the computer system is down and they'll try again in a minute, that's an example of government waste. It's a system that isn't working correctly, which as a result, wastes the time of hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of government workers on an ongoing basis.

There's no reason to believe any other part of the government is any better. Government IT is known for being disastrously slow at modernization, and it costs taxpayers a lot of money because our government doesn't spend the money to bring those systems up to date in a timely manner.

These are just some examples that are obvious from the outside looking in; there are probably many less obvious examples that would be obvious to someone who works there every day. And that's the point. The people at the top can't see what wastes the time of the people at the bottom, because they don't have visibility into their minute-by-minute activities (and even if they could, they would have a hard time filtering the flood of data into something useful). So you have to drive efficiency from the bottom up, and our government does not do this, so we can never really know whether that inefficiency adds up to half a percent or ten percent.

We can't get a complete picture without going to the people at the bottom of the org chart and asking them what could be done to make them more efficient, what could reduce waste, etc. It's a relatively easy low-hanging-fruit task, so we should do this. :-)

I hope that makes my position clearer.

Indeed, truth and accuracy is important to me, and I think it should be important to everyone. It baffles me that so many people don't seem to care about whether what they believe or say is true. I recognize that those people who care are often in the minority, but that just makes it harder to understand, not easier.

What is this devilry?

Never seen one before! Is that basically a filter coffee thing with the filter around all sides for convenience?

My main filter (it's the one at work) is one of these:

https://www.nisbets.co.uk/novo...

It takes a rather large paper filter. Less convenient for one cup, but it'll crank out 12, and keep them warm while cranking out 12 more.

It wasn't ugly. I have no opinion on whether painting it blue is an improvement or not (will wait until it's finished to collect visual data), but

I've seen the reflecting pool, and it wasn't ugly.

Most of those people don't care. If you see the world as "us against them," you don't really care how similar "them" is, as long as "us" is on top.

It's clan warfare, not logical fairness.

In the US, you can be fired for freely expressing your opinion (source).

The recourse is to start a union. When employers start policing social media, or opinions in general, it's time to join a union.

It's not fuzzy, it sucks. It is true under the law that a person can be fired for expressing their opinion publicly.

However, it's also true that it sucks. Employees do have a life outside work, and should not have their freedom of speech impinged by a corporation. People have been fired by Google because they disagree with Google working with Israel, for example. Silencing people doesn't change the disagreement, it just breeds dissatisfaction.

Employees do have recourse, and this is when I strongly consider joining a union. Don't want to be fired unfairly? That's what unions are for. Unions have drawbacks, but that is not one of them.

Lower cost but not lower risk.

Why are people so I'm live with it? It's worked pretty well so far. Turns out global warming is the massive elephant in the room and will be fast now destructive than all the nuclear accidents including Chernobyl, the weapons ones and everything put together times 100. And all the major economies with lower carbon footprints have substantial nuclear energy in the mix.

Germany is the worst of all the comparable European states.

They are the worst in terms of absolute numbers and the worst in terms of improvement.

What they appear to have is a very good PR campaign based on unrealised future promises.

Is the future nuclear? Probably not too a major extent but to dismiss the efficacy up to now you kind of have to dismiss carbon dioxide as a big problem.

What's a coffee pad?

Mostly I drink kirkland signature filter these days (at work) and whatever's available locally in a cafetiere at home.

Most businesses over a certain size also waste a f**kton of money. The larger the organization, the harder it is to avoid doing so.

I told you exactly how this practice creates waste. At the end of the year, unspent budget goes away, so the people to whom the budget was assigned look for ways to spend it. Most of that spending was not specifically budgeted for, or else the stuff would have been bought earlier in the cycle. And if it were strictly necessary, it would have been explicitly budgeted, rather than being bought because there just happened to be money left over.

What percentage of that spending provides a real benefit? There's no way to know, because they didn't have to provide a formal justification and ask for more funding to cover it, since there was money left over from something else that didn't cost as much as expected.

Risk without labour is just jumping off cliffs.

But hey, let's talk about risk. Most of these ultra-wealthy people don't know what risk is. Some of them really did come up from nothing, sure, but Musk had millions of dollars backing him in the form of his wealthy father. Trump, famously, would have made more money investing the money his father gave him in a stock ETF than going into real estate.

And further, I think it's reasonable to make a profit on some risk. I'm sure that the folks that own my favourite local coffee shop took on some risk to do it. You can't be sure a shop is going to succeed. I'm glad they have, and I wish them every success.

Of course, they've also worked VERY hard at making it a success. For those people that do take risks, it's their own LABOUR that makes these businesses work (that, and a bit of luck--opening up a month before COVID would have been bad luck, and nothing to do with risk OR labour).

But once you get in to the many hundreds of millions of dollars, I think we should be able to agree that there's never anything risky in their lives ever again. I'll keep repeating this every time I get a chance, but you can't make a billion dollars on a salary. $5000/day for 500 years is still not a billion dollars. It's a level of wealth that is impossible to accrue by any work of your own. It takes the work of other people.

As I said in another comment, if you have Jeff Bezos and no workers, Amazon is nothing. If you have all of Amazon, but no CEO, you can probably make a lot of money. The labour of the people at Amazon is what made it huge, and what made him rich. It is necessarily the case that those people produce more value than they are remunerated for--that's what a profit is. But when you have such a huge profit value, it tells you that the gap is *enormous*. Why is that okay? Why don't we think that those people that actually made the software and delivered the packages--the things that define Amazon as a company--don't deserve the value that they created?

It used to be that a CEO would only make 20x what their workers did, and they would be paid a real salary, one that could be taxed. Now they get paid hundreds or thousands of times what their workers do, just in stocks so it can't be taxed. They have an endless army of lawyers and accountants. They'll pay $80 million to avoid a $10 million tax, just to show you that they actually HAVE the money, they just refuse to give it back to the governments and people that provided the conditions to make them so fabulously wealthy. The roads, the education system, the laws, the safe borders--all these things went into the building of these hoards.

Work is how you make value. You have to plant crops and harvest them; or drill into the ground and extract and refine the petroleum; or write the software and fulfill the orders. All of that is labour. I have plenty of ideas and if I never execute on any of them, the idea is worth zero. That's why I'm banging on about wealth.

It's not impossible to tax; that's loser talk for defeatists. We made these laws, we've created these monetary fictions, we can write new laws and come up with more equitable systems. Stocks and bonds don't HAVE to exist, but given that they do, I think we can figure out a way to make sure that people don't become extremely wealthy and leave the rest of the country fighting for scraps, living paycheque to paycheque, hoping that their insurance premiums don't bankrupt them before the medical expenses do.

And hey, it doesn't have to be a wealth tax the way I define it--I think the things you suggested are de facto wealth taxes. But based on what you're saying, it sounds like you also believe in the necessity and the moral correctness of taxing them, especially when you and I are paying much higher proportions of our comparatively meagre holdings.

It's small segment of the population, the 0.1% and the 0.01%. They can be taxed. They are not special.

I think you tried to the wrong person. I was quoting the op.

The fact that you can't see government waste tells me that either you're not looking closely enough to see the problems or you're benefitting from the waste.

One of the core problems with government waste comes from the budgeting process itself, wherein money that is not spent a the end of a budget year must be given back, and your next year's budget will likely be cut based on the fact that you didn't use your entire budget that year. This sounds like a good idea in theory, until you realize that managers see that as a risk to them being able to do what they need to do the next year, which means they will find ways to spend any unused budget at the end of the year (or worse, the quarter), even if it is for things that could easily be deferred until a later year, or for things that they don't strictly require. And this is how budgets bloat.

To be fair, the same thing happens in businesses, academia, etc.; it is not specific to government. But it is very, very common in government. And while those expenses might not look like a lot at an individual team level, they add up to a lot by the time you look at the organization as a whole.

But no, the hilarious thing is that you're telling me I'm wrong without actually rebutting a single point that I've made, which means you're likely arguing based on blind faith in an ideology or political group, rather than based on an actual understanding of how government budgeting works, which makes your opinion largely irrelevant in practice.

Just saying.

Either that or it's a persistent urban legend.