[Domenic_S]

> taxation and wealth redistribution remain an effective way to bolster a societies resilience

Tangentially:

It’s wild how inconsistent the public and political reactions are to different ways of getting revenue. Take this common pattern:

When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often: "That’s only 0.01% of the federal budget. It’s nothing!"

But when someone proposes a tax on billionaires that would over time raise a similar amount suddenly the reaction flips: "We’ll solve inequality! Fund healthcare!"

This contradiction is everywhere. How can $20 billion in government savings be "nothing," while $20 billion in new tax revenue is "transformational"? It's the same money.

[no_wizard]

>When DOGE identifies billions of dollars in waste, fraud, or unnecessary spending, the reaction is often

Did DOGE actually identify significant levels of any of this or is it simply labeled that for the expedited purpose of shrinking the federal government's effectiveness by any means possible?

They've been far less than transparent with the data that supports their findings and have been called out numerous times for misrepresentation[0][1][2][3] and lack of transparency which took a lawsuit to at least partially recitify[4]

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/01/nx-s1-5313853/doge-savings-re...

[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/02/19/here-are...

[3]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/doge-days-musk-trump-t...

[4]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/11/judge-orders...

[Capricorn2481]

I don't know who these people are that you're talking about, who only propose taxes on billionaires and not the rest of the upper class, or who have compared those two numbers and seen they are different. I would imagine you're talking about two different groups with different figures.

Regardless, "taxing the rich" is not one mediocre policy, but several interdependent policies. It's not just picking the 5 richest people in the world and taking their money. The transformation doesn't come from redistributing $20 billion (wherever that figure is from) but encouraging executives to reinvest into their company instead of trying to suck as much cash out as possible.

Bobby Kotick making $155 million a year while Activison lays off hundreds of employees is insane. What on God's earth could you possibly need more than $20 million a year for? That is not right no matter you slice it. That money needs to be aggressively taxed so it is instead used to keep people employed at a much lower tax rate, not in the hopes that the government can use it for spending.

[plasmatix]

I don't think anyone would scoff and the discovery and elimination of waste or fraud. I think the vibe you're describing is doubt that these supposed billions in waste/fraud/abuse live up to the hype.

Surely there's plenty of waste in federal spending but I suspect the vast majority is not going to be blatant and easy to identify

[Domenic_S]

NPR did in their February article about DOGE; their story is ostensibly that out of everything claimed, NPR could verify “only” $2B in cuts which they present as meaningless:

> NPR's analysis found that, of its verifiable work completed so far, DOGE has cut just $2 billion in spending — less than three hundredths of a percent of last fiscal year's federal spending.

> "Think of Congress and its budget as the debt-ridden dad on the way to buy a $250,000 Ferrari on the credit card, and DOGE is the $2 off gas card he used along the way," Riedl said. "It's great that he saved $2 on gas, but I think his wife may be more concerned about the $250,000 car."

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/19/nx-s1-5302705/doge-overstates...

[p_j_w]

Given that Trump wants to enact insane ass tax cuts for the ultra rich, their framing sounds pretty reasonable!

[freejazz]

No one is suggesting only taxing billionaires to the tune of netting solely an additional $1B, that seems farcical.