View Single Post
Old 09-29-2010, 02:29 PM   #14
DMcCunney
New York Editor
DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DMcCunney ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DMcCunney's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,384
Karma: 16540415
Join Date: Aug 2007
Device: PalmTX, Pocket eDGe, Alcatel Fierce 4, RCA Viking Pro 10, Nexus 7
Everyone complains about how high taxes are. Part of the problem is there is no direct connection between revenue and expense. When a legislator proposes a bill that will require the government to spend money, it doesn't specify where the money will come from. I've wondered, on occasion, about a law that would require legislators to say how the government would get what they wanted to spend.

But the more interesting question isn't what the tax rate should be: it's what the government should be doing with the money. Reducing takes by any significant amount would require reducing government spending. What would you advocate the government not do to reduce spending, and why?
______
Dennis
DMcCunney is offline   Reply With Quote