[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?

[satvikpendem]

It is already done today. Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. Are some of them politically motivated or have academic disagreements? Sure, all people have personal politics and biases. But that is better than throwing up ones hands and saying we should accept all bad taxes because good ones also exist. By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?

[ceejayoz]

> Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes.

We have those, and they disagree almost as much as the general public does. Economists get plenty partisan; they're human!

> By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?

No. But I'm deeply skeptical of "bad tax!" assessments from someone who's calling random people Marxists on this thread!

[satvikpendem]

Why are you taking Marxist as an insult? Maybe that's your first issue, it's an accurate label for someone who believes in the labor theory of value which is something Marx came up.

And yes, economists are human of course (unless they're now AI). Not sure how that changes what I said. Just because they disagree doesn't mean what they do isn't better than throwing your hands up and saying it can't be done.

[ceejayoz]

Again, you asserted:

> There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way.

You then asserted those are:

> Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes.

But Marx himself is an example of that process - an economist, writing papers on all this. You clearly don't agree with his conclusions, so now we're... right back where we started?