Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What do you consider welfare?
Using one example of how this issue is confusing, consider the earned income tax credit. To get this credit a person has to have earned income, but not too much earned income. With the credit, the person can get back all taxes paid to the federal government, plus in addition they get the remainder of the credit in the form of a check from the federal government. Is that welfare? A person or family can loose 100% of the tax credit if they make too much money.
|
It think that it's pretty clear that in discussions like these, the words "taxes" and "welfare" have little actual meaning. They're just code words. It won't be long before someone starts claiming that roads are welfare.
Quote:
|
Here is another editorial with facts supporting the premise:
|
No doubt we should take the editorial extra seriously because the facts were chosen with great care.
Quote:
|
The pattern is pretty clear.
|
The only clear pattern is that it's difficult to predict how tax-based revenue will change in the future.
Minnesota in the 2000s is a pretty great example of why conservative economic policies fail when it comes to actually keeping government in the black. The great fiscal genius that is Tim Pawlenty, he of the "No New Taxes (but we'll impose a shitload of fees)" pledge was consistently unable to come up with a budget that didn't rely on shifting costs down the road or raiding money set aside for something else. One of his main problems was that despite the old canard that reducing taxes actually increases gov't revenue, he was met with consistent budget shortfalls. If I were IBD, I'd make this connection and let the reader come up with their own flawed conclusion, but I'm not, so I'll just say that the economy is complicated, and that the people who seem to have certainty regarding it are the ones who are the most confused by it.