[groundzeros2015]

I think that’s their justification in the abstract, not the justification for most individual tax items.

[ceejayoz]

I don't have to inspect every grain of rice with a magnifying glass to enjoy the overall dish.

[groundzeros2015]

Are you arguing that we should have bad taxes because some taxes are good?

[ceejayoz]

Yes, absolutely.

There's a cost to perfection. In our computing world, every extra nine of reliability is more expensive than the last, often with diminishing returns.

See also: Florida drug testing welfare recipients cost more than it saved. https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/just-we-suspected-fl...

[groundzeros2015]

You’re arguing that the cost to find bad taxes is not worth the savings. That’s not the same thing.

If I’ve already found with a poor justification or better yet, someone is proposing a new one. Shouldn’t we remove it?

[ceejayoz]

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

> 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-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]

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