"There is so much waste in government spending" - Jeff Bezos
Starting at minute 19, check out this brilliant discussion between Jeff Bezos and Andrew Ross Sorkin. I think we can learn a lot from the interview, and government would be better served if more of Bezos’ mentality were injected into it.
Bezos makes many important points.
Some fields of business are heavily dependent on government handouts or regulation that stifles competition and ensures profits generated from the public purse— even irrespective of public value. These groups lobby heavily to ensure that system continues, creating a false narrative. In contrast, other businesses truly compete in the free market, and have generated massive societal good. These business are often only hampered by illogical government restrictions.
Bezos makes an important point on whether we should have any tax at all on the bottom 50% of earners in America. It generates a pittance (3% of the budget) with great pain to those individuals. Better to remove it entirely.
Bezos is correct that there is massive— nearly incomprehensible— waste in government spending. Perhaps in some departments the majority of the budget is wasted. And yet, there is no incentive for (and strong pressures against) this reform. Many seem incapable of seeing that not using money optimally is a form of waste.
Bezos is right about the Washington Post. A newspaper that loses money is one that is not relevant. It is not doing the best job for its readers. The converse is not true: a newspapers that makes money is not perfect— it can do better, but losing money is a non-starter.
Thanks for subscribing and ensuring this substack stays relevant.
I think everyone should pay taxes including the bottom 50%. Even if it's just $5.
Why? Because when you're spending someone else's [who is wealthy] money, you'll spend without regard. But when you have skin in the game - even a hard earned $5, you'll care way more about the government spending it wisely.
Disagree with the notion that the bottom 50% of earners should not pay income tax. It's bad policy. The fact that the amount collected is only 3% - "a pittance" - is a problem, but in the other direction when it comes to determining what is "fair" philosophically. The fact that under current law, they are contributing that 3% means that, despite the fact that this contribution is small (and seems insignificant to Bezos) they at least HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME. It is NOT good policy to have a segment of income earners that are entirely exempt and have no skin in the game. We have that system now. In fact, there a significant segement of that bottom 50% of earners who get refundable credits in the form of the child tax credit and the earned income credit, which means that even under the current system, the higher earners are PAYING the income taxes of the lower earners, paying them a stipend for having more children, and paying their social security contributions for them. Bezos is likely ok with all of that, philosophically, but there is no reason for any of us to be ok with it. It is NOT GOOD to have a system of taxation that takes from A and gives to B, but that is in fact what we already have.
It results in stupid conversations, such as when someone rightly suggests that the highest rate income taxpayers should get a tax cut. Every time this is suggested, the Nancy Pelosi types come running out saying that the lowest rate income taxpayers should "get a cut" too - when they are already paying zero and in fact getting their refundable credits.
If we wanted a fair system, we would repeal the 16th amendment, and then write a new amendment that bans taxes based on incomes. Then the governement can impose taxes on transactions where everyone has skin in the game. If the government wants to write checks to the poor, they can enact legislation to do so, but in the naked light of day, rather than by granting refundable credits for income taxes that they don't even pay.