Education on the horizon?
In what is a welcome sight, sources close to the Georgia House Democratic leadership told me over the weekend that they have plans to push to use the $142 million state tax surplus to fund the gaps in education.
This, to me, would be a better course of action rather than sending out $77 checks to folks.
This, to me, would be a better course of action rather than sending out $77 checks to folks.
posted by Jmac at 7:29 AM
16 Comments:
Re taxes: We surely don't want people spending their own money as they see fit. Much better to hand it over to education bureaucrats.
Yes!
Especially considering the wonderful track record the educrats have compiled over the past few decades.
"30 years of muck highlighted by occasional grasps at mediocrity? Sure! Let's have 30 more!"
The good news is: it's the Democrats who are grabbing at this particular pile of taxpayer money. That puts this in the Tree Falling In The Forest category.
Ah, lovely government. "We charged you too much, but we're going to keep the money anyway." If a restaurant overcharged you $77, would you be OK if they told you they were donating it to a charity of their choice instead of refunding it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
If I could type correctly ...
Actually, I probably would on some level ...
But, then again, the business model comparisons with the government don't exactly work out either do they? You want a refund for the spending in Iraq? I don't hear a lot of folks clamoring about that.
Nor should you. The money we spent in Iraq subtracted by one the number of state sponsors of terror.
A bargain at twice the price.
Look, this is a real simple fix. Any time you feel under-taxed, write a check to the government. They'll take it.
The money we spent in Iraq subtracted by one the number of state sponsors of terror.
Awesome! We're just making stuff up now and completely rewriting, not only history, but the reality of the matter that even our own National Intelligence Report tells us that radical Islamic terrorist groups are emboldened and recruiting more based on our involvement.
And, another thing on this 'rebate' ... why not effectively argue for a reduction on tax rates and drop this whole 'rebate' argument? Josh, you tossed out the business model, so we'll briefly go with that, but if a business brought in more money than it projected, would you expect them to refund it to the consumer? Of course not (if so, I'd like to get a check from Exxon in the next few weeks).
A reduction in rates, while preserving the progressive taxation scale, would bring more long-term benefit rather than a one-time giveaway of relatively small amount of money. That was my problem with the Bush tax rebate in 2001 ... sure I bought a pair of shoes with it, but I haven't gotten anything else from it.
Actually, one of the companies I do business with does just that: I just got what amounts to a rebate check from my auto insurance company. Utilities companies do likewise.
And, of course, every publicly traded company does it, in the form of stock payments, dividends, etc.
Say what you will about Iraq, but it ain't a state sponsor of terror. It was, under Saddam and Sons.
Much to the dismay of many on the left, they are no longer viable.
Also, they didn't charge you too much. They just decided not to give you some of what you paid for. Which is not the same thing.
I just got what amounts to a rebate check from my auto insurance company. Utilities companies do likewise.
And, of course, every publicly traded company does it, in the form of stock payments, dividends, etc.
Those are apples and oranges my friend. The first two feature fixed prices based on a previous agreement and overpayment, due to fluctuating rates, feature rebates of some sort.
Stock payments, as well, come from investment in said company. If the company makes more, they're paying the stock holders who, in theory, are part of the business. They're not giving anything back to the consumer, but to the business.
If Wal-Mart said we're going to make X amount of money, but they actually make X amount plus Y, then the company keeps that additional income and either invests it in new stores or distributes it to its financial supporters (i.e. stockholders ... even if you only hold $17 of Wal-Mart stock). The business is still keeping that money.
Regarding Iraq ... there's a larger picture at work here that you're failing to see. If you remove a state sponsor of terror - despite the fact that the extent of Saddam's dabbling was an ill-fated and mismanaged attempt on President George H.W. Bush's life, which he rightfully paid for with air strikes or that the only primary link was that he sent money to after-the-fact to the families of those widowed by suicide bombings in Palestine - you also see that a whole new generation of radical Islamists have been emboldened and energized (and that they are using Iraq as a training ground and recruitment tool).
So, using your argument, it's 'OK' because we removed one state sponsor ... even though we have possibly created hundreds, if not thousands, more who enjoy freelancing and aren't bound by geographical constraints.
I like the "it's only $77" argument.
But I don't recall it being applied when we ask people to pony up for a voter ID card to prove they are who they say they are when they show up the precinct. Somehow, my cry of "it's only $10" made me sound like a callous, heartless advocate of a return to the Jim Crow days (then again, even getting the state to pony up the $10 made me sound like a callous, heartless advocate of a return to the Jim Crow days, but I digress).
You folks on the Left are always generous--with other people's money.
Consider me unimpressed.
Uh, well, that wasn't the point of the Voter ID discussion on its first go-round. The point was, and why the Georgia Supreme Court threw out the first version of the law, was because it ultimately charged one group of individuals (interestingly enough, it wasn't lower-income citizens) for an ID while not charging others, thus it was deemed a poll tax.
The court rightfully dismissed that, and the legislature rightfully got to work on to produce a more equitable way to set up an ID system (even if I disagreed with what they said could and couldn't be a valid form of ID).
This whole 'other people's money' thing is ridiculous, by the way. If you don't like that system of government, then elect representatives who pledge to change it. Perhaps push for a system like they have in California where the voters get to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on all sorts of thing that our elected representatives back.
Until then, you don't get to pick and choose how your specific tax dollars are spent.
And, again, why push the rebate method which is a one-time and rather meaningless 'refund' of money? Instead, argue for a reduction in rates which can fuel long-term benefits.
Actually, I'm arguing for an elimination of those taxes altogether.
Boo, property taxes and income taxes! Hooray, consumption taxes!
Well, see, here's a legitimate discussion to have then. We may disagree over it, but at least it's one over the system rather than nuances of the system.
Folks, the Iraq situation and the general "should gov't refund us when they 'overcharge' us" are not analogous, are they?
One, Iraq isn't "running a surplus." There was not up front prediction as to how much it should cost, and we certainly haven't come in under that projected cost. Iraq is a money hole, so there is no 'surplus' to debate over.
Iraq is a particular appropriation within the tax-spending-matrix. Analogously, then it is like a particular project that a company has going. Nobody is arguing/would argue that EVERY single government program should have to pay a refund if it runs a surplus, but rather that on the whole, when all government projects are aggregated together, if there is a surplus then the gov't in effect 'owes' a refund (morally, if not legally) to the people from whom that money was confiscated by force.
Finally,
"This whole 'other people's money' thing is ridiculous, by the way. If you don't like that system of government, then elect representatives who pledge to change it."
While I disagree that it is "ridiculous" to have philosophical and ethical concerns about taking money from other people by force and using it in a way that YOU think is best, I do hope that some people are finally going to take you up on your advice here. Ultimately, the powers that be can only get away with what the population lets them get away with. And there are candidates out there who promise to roll back the "we're the government and we're here to help" approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home