Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Uh, yeah. That's sort of the definition. Every year, even if not one single tax law, reg, or rate is changed, people make more or less money than the year before, and their taxes change. If, magically, that overall shifting resulted in exactly the same number of tax dollars collected from one year to next, I think we'd not be counting it as a tax increase, even though some individuals saw their taxes increase. Guv'mint won't have any more money to play with, people who like to raise taxes will pay more, people who think taxes are too high will pay less - damn, it's a win/win!
But, fear not. Soon, the Democrats will take over again, and then our taxes will go sky-high, but they'll be "revenue enhancements", or "fair-share adjustments", but certainly not "tax increases."
|
There's a certain freshness to defending the adjustment of effective tax burdens to have a correlation of punishment of Democrats and benefit to Republicans. Usually these kinds of distinctions are made by income and not voting preferences, but your embrace of this particular solution as a "win/win!" is something that I have to award points for candor.
I'm sure you'll have the same grudging admiration for the next Democratic Administration which would institute, say, a higher probability of compulsory service for families of neo-conservatives that advocate a vastly more aggressive foreign policy funded through the elimination of moehair subsidies. The age of minutely targeted public policy has arrived.
