Words matter. That’s why you hear so much doublespeak coming from the mouths of legislators, statewide officials, and special interest lobbyists in Olympia. They talk about “investments,” not spending. Taxes are “revenue.”
And apparently tax increases are now “saving.” While it’s no surprise to see the House Democrats refer to the tax increases in their supplemental budget proposal that way, it is unfortunate to see media types adopting this kind of Orwellian language.
Yesterday the AP used the term to refer to the House Democrats’ plan to end four tax incentives, which apparently would “save” state government money by increasing the amount it takes out of the economy and your pockets. According to the AP:
“The proposal would save $100 million by closing four tax exemptions, including the out-of-state sales tax one, another on timber product waste claimed by oil refineries, and another on sales tax on bottled water.”
By that logic, state government could “save” so much more. An income tax, a capital gains tax, increasing the sales tax – just think of the savings!
Good lord . . . ending ineffective tax breaks is somehow a bad deal for taxpayers? Great. By your logic handing out more ineffective tax breaks would be a boon for the economy and taxpayers.
Good lord . . . ending ineffective tax breaks is somehow a bad deal for taxpayers? Great. By your logic handing out more ineffective tax breaks would be a boon for the economy and taxpayers.
Good lord . . . ending ineffective tax breaks is somehow a bad deal for taxpayers? Great. By your logic handing out more ineffective tax breaks would be a boon for the economy and taxpayers.
When the government decides that they are “saving” money when they increase tax revenues, they are really saying that all income belongs to the government and they will decide what the poor taxpayers are allowed to keep.
In this case, they had been “generous” in letting some taxpayers keep more of the money they earned and the legislature now regrets that “generosity” and has determined that those taxpayers don’t need that money after all.
When the government decides that they are “saving” money when they increase tax revenues, they are really saying that all income belongs to the government and they will decide what the poor taxpayers are allowed to keep.n In this case, they had been “generous” in letting some taxpayers keep more of the money they earned and the legislature now regrets that “generosity” and has determined that those taxpayers don’t need that money after all.
When the government decides that they are “saving” money when they increase tax revenues, they are really saying that all income belongs to the government and they will decide what the poor taxpayers are allowed to keep.
In this case, they had been “generous” in letting some taxpayers keep more of the money they earned and the legislature now regrets that “generosity” and has determined that those taxpayers don’t need that money after all.
So . . . the government should not levy any taxes? Or, are you saying that it is just fine / a good think that some get preferential treatment via the tax code? A tax break is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it is not achieving its intended purpose, then something is wrong. But I do appreciate your sarcasm – it is “clever.”
So . . . the government should not levy any taxes? Or, are you saying that it is just fine / a good think that some get preferential treatment via the tax code? A tax break is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it is not achieving its intended purpose, then something is wrong. But I do appreciate your sarcasm – it is “clever.”
So . . . the government should not levy any taxes? Or, are you saying that it is just fine / a good think that some get preferential treatment via the tax code? A tax break is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it is not achieving its intended purpose, then something is wrong. But I do appreciate your sarcasm – it is “clever.”