I find it strange that mike believes that paying federal taxes makes any difference. Unless an increase in tax revenue somehow causes an increase in a relevant program's budget, how can we say that there's any causal effect at all?
As far as I can see, budgets are controlled by Congress and the executive branch, so the effect size for a taxpayer is zero. It shouldn't be hard to beat zero with charitable donations?
Yeah - remarkable to say that funding the US government so it will fund health programs is more efficient or effective than simply funding health programs directly. I think that’s a statement born of political convictions more than reason, and it makes me trust his analysis less.
Startling to see an expert so Democrat-pilled on the big-picture issues (climate, "equity", tax policy) shed so few tears for USAID. Could just be political caution, or internal politics, but it increases my (previously low) probability on the USAID cuts being net progress.
I find it strange that mike believes that paying federal taxes makes any difference. Unless an increase in tax revenue somehow causes an increase in a relevant program's budget, how can we say that there's any causal effect at all?
As far as I can see, budgets are controlled by Congress and the executive branch, so the effect size for a taxpayer is zero. It shouldn't be hard to beat zero with charitable donations?
Yeah - remarkable to say that funding the US government so it will fund health programs is more efficient or effective than simply funding health programs directly. I think that’s a statement born of political convictions more than reason, and it makes me trust his analysis less.
Startling to see an expert so Democrat-pilled on the big-picture issues (climate, "equity", tax policy) shed so few tears for USAID. Could just be political caution, or internal politics, but it increases my (previously low) probability on the USAID cuts being net progress.