Government Efficiency (1 Viewer)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[TampaJoe]

And as long as Trump want to keep removing trillions from the budget by giving the 1% huge tax cuts, that is going to continue. Just answer one question - Why should a man who earns billions pay less tax on every $ earned than the single mom working 2 jobs to support her family ?

Perhaps he is taking advantage of legitimate tax preference items passed by the legislature and signed into law by Potuses over the years. Tax preferences designed and often passed in a bipartisan fashion to encourage the purchase of equipment, business growth and investment, construction etc.

Harris was speaking about encouraging builders to build more homes for low and middle income home buyers. How do you think that was gonna happen? The tax code is often used by the government to encourage economic behaviour and then folks birch when individuals take advantage of those tax preferences.

I don’t question that as with any other parts of government. It isn’t perfect and probably would benefit from reform. But as with any reform, unintended consequences can be a killer.

 

[TampaJoe]

Who asked you if you could cut 10 percent from your household budget?

And why would you think it's a meaningful question? You surely understand some households could cut 10% - or more! - from their budget without any significant impact on their lives, and for other households even a few percent would be disastrous. Right?


Well, you're literally just ignoring the points made and repeating yourself in replying to things that no-one has actually said. Like, I just said, "improving efficiency is complex and requires deep understanding", and you've instead replied to, "You may have confidence in such a system to be free of waste and inefficiency." Which isn't what was said.

That's not my problem, sure, but I'd suggest going back a few pages and seeing what you're missing.

You know Rob, you have repeated the same point several times. I get it. Improving efficiency can be complex and requires understanding. I haven’t disputed that. I never said it was simple or easy. I said more than once that the process involves working with management and other stakeholders to identify opportunities for improvement and change. That’s how and where one addresses complexity and obtains understanding.

That said I still think it’s a healthy exercise and I don’t fear the process.

I’m not sure what you expect. I don’t control the government or DOGE. Neither do you. I’m supportive of the process. You don’t have to agree. That’s okay by me.

 

[UriUT]

I get it.

No, no you don't get it. You exhibit the same misunderstanding on this topic as you do on immigration and even taxation. And when challenged, you assert that it's your opinion and it should be weighted as much as anyone else's even when you cannot defend your stance. "It's my opinion" is not a valid defense. There has to be common ground on supportive facts and reasoning. If someone showed logically that your argument is bs, you need to counter with a logics base path.

Answer this:

"I want you to solve this math question...

And FYI, you can do yourself a favor and just look up past attempts at bureaucratic reforms, notably obama's. There is an interview he did that I cannot fully remember, but he claimed progress. But that isn't the point folks in this thread are making. Yet you keep categorizing reforms as something we are opposed.

 

[UriUT]

If you came into my house and directed me to cut my expenses by 10 percent, I can do it. It’s a matter of setting priorities and looking for savings. As I said before, government is no different than anything run by man. Now I might not like cutting my budget. I might believe that I’m running pretty lean but I can do it.

I have worked in organizations big and small over a 40 year career and I have never worked in a perfect world. There is always room for improvement. I find it hard to believe that the largest bureaucracy in this country spending trillions of dollars each year and running trillion dollar deficits year over year, can’t find improvements.

That’s all I’m saying. There IS room for improvement and Indont fear people asking questions and suggesting changes. That’s a good thing. I can’t guarantee that every suggestion will be good or that every idea will work. That’s an unrealistic expectation for human beings. But we should always be striving for continuous improvement in government. I’m looking for progress not perfection.

And by the way, if you are part of the process, You know what needs to be improved. So you can protect your budget and your turf, or you can offer suggestions for change.

Continuing on, here you have completely merged ideas...policy->compromise->appropriations->allocation of funds->execution. Efficiency is in that final part yet you want us to talk about the whole process.

You want to pit the cart before the horse...some sort of confirmation bias.

Foe example. The us post office has been one of the most efficient part of government. There's a continuing echo on the right that it's broken. Without defining what's wrong with it, trump comes in and assigned dejoy. He ordered removal and destruction of all auto sorting machines, thereby slowing down deliveries. There are arguments he intentionally did that for election reasons btw. Small businesses suffered. Go look it up. Some had to eat the cost of of slow deliveries and had to use private carriers at much greater costs.

 

[TampaJoe]

No, no you don't get it. You exhibit the same misunderstanding on this topic as you do on immigration and even taxation. And when challenged, you assert that it's your opinion and it should be weighted as much as anyone else's even when you cannot defend your stance. "It's my opinion" is not a valid defense. There has to be common ground on supportive facts and reasoning. If someone showed logically that your argument is bs, you need to counter with a logics base path.

Answer this:

"I want you to solve this math question...

And FYI, you can do yourself a favor and just look up past attempts at bureaucratic reforms, notably obama's. There is an interview he did that I cannot fully remember, but he claimed progress. But that isn't the point folks in this thread are making. Yet you keep categorizing reforms as something we are opposed.

This isn’t math. Just saying. This is politics and policy. As I understand discussions, they are often full of opinions. I dont know whether you are or are not supportive of reforms. Are you? Have you said what you are for on this topic?

All I have said is that I am supportive of the process. I think it has value. That’s an opinion. Perhaps you agree. Perhaps you don’t. Is there a problem with that?

 

[UriUT]

And by the way, if you are part of the process, You know what needs to be improved. So you can protect your budget and your turf, or you can offer suggestions for change.

So here, you are suggesting that folks are intentionally being inefficient? They know what's wrong and won't do a thing. They are just waiting for a white knight to come save them. And without asking and talking to these people, musk knows that there are 2 trillion dollars of savings. I mean, I have some swamp real-estate for sale. Care to give me your savings? I'll triple it in 1 year.

Also, consistent with your post, you only think Republicans care to do anything, while dems sit on their arse....yeah..ok

 

[UriUT]

This isn’t math. Just saying. This is politics and policy. As I understand discussions, they are often full of opinions. I dont know whether you are or are not supportive of reforms. Are you? Have you said what you are for on this topic?

All I have said is that I am supportive of the process. I think it has value. That’s an opinion. Perhaps you agree. Perhaps you don’t. Is there a problem with that?

Way to miss the point.

Can you solve thos math question for me...

 

[TampaJoe]

So here, you are suggesting that folks are intentionally being inefficient? They know what's wrong and won't do a thing. They are just waiting for a white knight to come save them. And without asking and talking to these people, musk knows that there are 2 trillion dollars of savings. I mean, I have some swamp real-estate for sale. Care to give me your savings? I'll triple it in 1 year.

Also, consistent with your post, you only think Republicans care to do anything, while dems sit on their arse....yeah..ok

I suggested nothing of the kind. I suggested seeking the opinions and tapping the knowledge of people in the field. In my experience they often fall into two groups. They are either open to change and often eager to change or they are resistant to change. Maybe they resist change because they believe that it won’t be effective. I dunno.

As for the rest of your post, stick to stating what you think and stop putting words in my mouth. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t totally agree with either party. I’m a right of center independent conservative.

 

[Dragon]

Perhaps he is taking advantage of legitimate tax preference items passed by the legislature and signed into law by Potuses over the years. Tax preferences designed and often passed in a bipartisan fashion to encourage the purchase of equipment, business growth and investment, construction etc.

Harris was speaking about encouraging builders to build more homes for low and middle income home buyers. How do you think that was gonna happen? The tax code is often used by the government to encourage economic behaviour and then folks birch when individuals take advantage of those tax preferences.

I don’t question that as with any other parts of government. It isn’t perfect and probably would benefit from reform. But as with any reform, unintended consequences can be a killer.

Except that is not what happened. They did not have to invest in anything. It was a straight up tax cut.

 

[TampaJoe]

Except that is not what happened. They did not have to invest in anything. It was a straight up tax cut.

Give me a specific example if you can. I’m somewhat familiar with the tax code and the rates are progressive. So if someone is paying a lower effective rate, they are using specific tax preferences or are utilizing other provisions such as loss carryforwards or carrybacks. In general, your effective rate increases as your taxable income increases.

 

[bird]

Perhaps he is taking advantage of legitimate tax preference items passed by the legislature and signed into law by Potuses over the years. Tax preferences designed and often passed in a bipartisan fashion to encourage the purchase of equipment, business growth and investment, construction etc.

Harris was speaking about encouraging builders to build more homes for low and middle income home buyers. How do you think that was gonna happen? The tax code is often used by the government to encourage economic behaviour and then folks birch when individuals take advantage of those tax preferences.

I don’t question that as with any other parts of government. It isn’t perfect and probably would benefit from reform. But as with any reform, unintended consequences can be a killer.

And they should be stopped.

 

[bird]

Give me a specific example if you can. I’m somewhat familiar with the tax code and the rates are progressive. So if someone is paying a lower effective rate, they are using specific tax preferences or are utilizing other provisions such as loss carryforwards or carrybacks. In general, your effective rate increases as your taxable income increases.

No corporation will invest anywhere based upon tax breaks. It doesn’t happen. Corporations invest based upon profitability. Tax breaks by federal, state and local governments are revenue destructive gifts that attempt to entice corporations. Corporate concerns are profit, availability of the labor needed, availability of transportation if such is required and so on.

 

[TampaJoe]

No corporation will invest anywhere based upon tax breaks. It doesn’t happen. Corporations invest based upon profitability. Tax breaks by federal, state and local governments are revenue destructive gifts that attempt to entice corporations. Corporate concerns are profit, availability of the labor needed, availability of transportation if such is required and so on.

The original question was regarding individual taxation.

 

[Dragon]

Give me a specific example if you can. I’m somewhat familiar with the tax code and the rates are progressive. So if someone is paying a lower effective rate, they are using specific tax preferences or are utilizing other provisions such as loss carryforwards or carrybacks. In general, your effective rate increases as your taxable income increases.

​

1. Lower Top Marginal Tax Rate:
   • The highest individual income tax rate was cut from 39.6% to 37%.
   • Increase in Estate Tax Exemption:
     • The exemption for federal estate taxes doubled, rising from $5.49 million to $11.18 million per person (indexed for inflation).
     • This allowed wealthy individuals to pass more wealth to their heirs tax-free.
2. Reduction of Corporate Tax Rate:
   • The corporate tax rate was slashed from 35% to 21%, benefiting business owners and shareholders, who are disproportionately represented in the wealthiest brackets.
3. Pass-Through Business Deduction:
   • Owners of pass-through entities (like LLCs and S-corporations) could deduct up to 20% of their business income, reducing their effective tax rates. Wealthy individuals with such entities gained substantial savings.

Impact on Wealth Distribution​

• Income Inequality: The top 1% saw the largest relative benefits. Studies estimate that they received about 20-25% of the total benefits of the TCJA. Over time, the law was projected to increase after-tax income for the wealthiest more than for middle- or low-income groups.
• 
  
• Temporary vs. Permanent Cuts: While corporate tax cuts were made permanent, most individual tax provisions are set to expire after 2025. This structure added to the perception that the wealthiest Americans were prioritized in the legislation.

Criticism and Economic Debate​

• Deficits: The tax cuts contributed to higher federal deficits, with an estimated $1.5 trillion added to the national debt over a decade.
• Limited Middle-Class Benefits: While middle-income households did receive tax cuts, the benefits were smaller and temporary compared to those received by the top 1%.

 

[TampaJoe]

​

1. Lower Top Marginal Tax Rate:
   • The highest individual income tax rate was cut from 39.6% to 37%.
   • Increase in Estate Tax Exemption:
     • The exemption for federal estate taxes doubled, rising from $5.49 million to $11.18 million per person (indexed for inflation).
     • This allowed wealthy individuals to pass more wealth to their heirs tax-free.
2. Reduction of Corporate Tax Rate:
   • The corporate tax rate was slashed from 35% to 21%, benefiting business owners and shareholders, who are disproportionately represented in the wealthiest brackets.
3. Pass-Through Business Deduction:
   • Owners of pass-through entities (like LLCs and S-corporations) could deduct up to 20% of their business income, reducing their effective tax rates. Wealthy individuals with such entities gained substantial savings.

Impact on Wealth Distribution​

• Income Inequality: The top 1% saw the largest relative benefits. Studies estimate that they received about 20-25% of the total benefits of the TCJA. Over time, the law was projected to increase after-tax income for the wealthiest more than for middle- or low-income groups.
• 
  
• Temporary vs. Permanent Cuts: While corporate tax cuts were made permanent, most individual tax provisions are set to expire after 2025. This structure added to the perception that the wealthiest Americans were prioritized in the legislation.

Criticism and Economic Debate​

• Deficits: The tax cuts contributed to higher federal deficits, with an estimated $1.5 trillion added to the national debt over a decade.
• Limited Middle-Class Benefits: While middle-income households did receive tax cuts, the benefits were smaller and temporary compared to those received by the top 1%.

Show me the part where marginal tax rates for the top 1 percent are lower than the single mom working two jobs. That is simply not true.

Did we lower taxes. Yep. Never said we didn’t. They called it simplification. I have my reservations. It did result in lower taxes for a number of lower income and lower middle class tax payers. It did absolutely nothing for me. I actually paid more. I have no doubt some wealthy individuals benefited. But your statement that wealthy people pay a lower rate is simply not true.

Not without taking advantage of tax preferences passed into law by both parties and signed into law by presidents of both parties. Government uses the tax code to encourage all kinds of behaviour. Like purchasing an electric car.

I have no problem taking a look at the code with the idea of making it fairer. If we are looking to reimagine how we run and fund government, revenues and taxation are part of the discussion. As much as the 6 trillion in spending should be part of the discussion. Put it all on the table.

 

[TampaJoe]

No corporation will invest anywhere based upon tax breaks. It doesn’t happen. Corporations invest based upon profitability. Tax breaks by federal, state and local governments are revenue destructive gifts that attempt to entice corporations. Corporate concerns are profit, availability of the labor needed, availability of transportation if such is required and so on.

I consult with a Fortune 100 company. Multi billion dollar multi national company. They have a huge tax department. Every major transaction has to run thru the tax department. It may not be the only consideration but it’s most certainly a factor.

 

[Sendai]

And as long as Trump want to keep removing trillions from the budget by giving the 1% huge tax cuts, that is going to continue. Just answer one question - Why should a man who earns billions pay less tax on every $ earned than the single mom working 2 jobs to support her family ?

A man who earns billions doesn’t pay Less taxes on every dollar earned. In 2021 musk payed $11 billion in income taxes. A 41% rate.

“
In total, he spent $142.6 million to purchase shares worth $23.6 billion, giving him $23.5 billion in in taxable income, taxable for 2021 at a federal rate of about 41%.

Musk also sold a small fraction of the additional shares he already owned, sales that fetched a taxable $5.8 billion at a lower capital gains rate.”

Elon Musk’s US tax bill: $11 billion. Tesla’s: $0 | CNN Business

Elon Musk has repeatedly bragged (or, perhaps, complained) that he’ll pay more in federal taxes for 2021 than anyone has ever paid — about $11 billion. But Tesla apparently won’t pay a cent.

www.cnn.com

Sometime around 2028 to 2032, based on today’s numbers, he’ll probably pay around $25 billion in taxes on Tesla stock options. And when Spacex goes public another $100 billion in taxes.

While a single mother of 2 making $50,000 a year will owe $19 in income taxes and get a check for $611 based on a $630 earned income credit.

 

[MT15]

Perhaps he is taking advantage of legitimate tax preference items

You didn’t pay any attention to his fraud case in NY, did you? He doesn’t do “legitimate” at all, never has. Not in business, not in his personal life, and certainly not in politics.