> Unfortunately very few people seem to understand that government, intrinsically, is inefficient and bad at everything it does.

This is a laughably false statement. It's easy to find stories of government projects that came in ahead of schedule and under budget, but you have to look for them because those stories don't get nearly as much attention as the inverse.

Take the Hoover Dam, for example. That was one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in American history, and came in years ahead of schedule, and millions under budget.[0] Google around infrastructure publications and you'll find dozens more stories like this.

To say that every thing a government does is bad is to fundamentally ignore reality, which is that no, not everything the government does is bad. You can never be taken seriously making sweeping generalizations like that.

0: https://www.marketplace.org/2010/05/28/why-we-might-not-have...

I'm not here to argue that "everything the government does is bad" because I think it's a very nuanced situation. That said, I feel like the Hoover Dam needs to be mentioned in the same breath as Hoovervilles, and as a precursor to the Great Depression.

Arguably, this high-level decision making is the only part that the government did, and should receive credit for, as the Six Companies consortium actually executed the construction.

It's unfortunate that these arguments often involve people talking past one another; governments (being made up of people) are obviously capable of good outcomes. They're also capable of generating bad or inefficient outcomes. Those two latter points are where I think there is value in the discussion: is a governmental act moral, and does it increase efficiency (in the sense of humanity prevailing against its default state).

> Arguably, this high-level decision making is the only part that the government did, and should receive credit for, as the Six Companies consortium actually executed the construction.

I agree with this, but couldn't it also be applied inversely? If a government project experiences cost overruns due to a private contractor poorly estimating the project, shouldn't blame also be placed on said contractor? Success is so often privatized and failure socialized.

Sure, absolutely, and this is a good point. However, much of that comes from changing requirements or an unrealistic bid process to begin with. Shady business practices by government contractors should absolutely be scrutinized. It’s a complicated undertaking all the way around.

What is laughable if the fact you picked a make work jobs program like the Hover Damn to highlight government efficiency...

The entire purpose of project was because the government needed to find something for thousands of unemployed men to do. It was literally the definition of "busy work"

Further the budget was massively reduced because they did not have to concern themselves with minor things like environmental impact, or worker safety...

I hope that is not your only shinning example of government as it is very much tarnished by the stain of blood

My argument is that Tax calculation should NOT be so complex that we need any entity (Govt or Private) to actually run it. Why don't we simplify the tax ssytem like other developed countries instead ? E.g. I worked in Hong Kong for aabout 2 years and for my taxes, the Govt. already calculated everything and I just had to check some boxes. Why cannot we do that here in the United States ? And Yes, I am aware of things like complex deductions etc but still, majority of Americans don't have that problem.

The problem with the US tax code itself is legislation and corruption via tax policy. Enactment of tax credits and penalties is one of the few areas Congress constitutionally has almost unfettered authority. It's much easier to encourage or discourage a behavior that way than to pass conventional legislation and risk not being able to use the Get Out of Constitution Free(tm) card (aka, the Commerce Clause).

> government, intrinsically, is inefficient and bad at everything it does

And yet, we need it to work well if we want things like property rights, functioning markets, public safety, law and order and so on. So why not focus on how it could become better, instead of giving up on it?