[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

[ceejayoz]

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.

[satvikpendem]

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]

> 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]

Sure, although it doesn't require Nobel level effort to understand.

[ceejayoz]

Go on. What are these practical "ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way" options?

[groundzeros2015]

> You seem to be suggesting here it’s impossible or too costly to weigh pros or cons.

Sounds like you agree.

[ceejayoz]

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]

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]

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.