Maryland Slots....Rewarding Fiscal Irresponsibility
We saw it during the Wall Street bailout. Fiscal irresponsibility. Political spin broadcast as fact by the media. Politicians using sweeteners and strong arm tactics to push a deal that's "good for everyone." Special Interests spending millions to promote their agenda. Doing "something" becoming more important than doing the right thing. What were the results? Fiscal irresponsibility was rewarded. Politicians got their deal, but ignored the policies that created the crisis. Special interests profited, and taxpayers got the bill. The same scenario is unfolding with Maryland's slots referendum. But before we reward Governor O'Malley's fiscal irresponsibility, before we accept his slots spin as fact, before we believe the false promise of more education funding, and before we give special interests another big payday, let's compare O'Malley's slots myths with the facts.
O'Malley Myth #1: "Maryland's budget has been cut by $1.8 billion. Even after a $1.5 billion tax increase, we need slots to avoid painful cuts in services." Fact: Maryland's budget increased from $30 to $31.2 billion after the Special Session. You can't make $1.8 billion in budget cuts, and simultaneously increase spending by $1.2 billion. It's no more possible than having your grass grow two inches while you're cutting the lawn. During the Special Session called to "fix" O'Malley's $1.7 billion deficit, spending on new or expanded programs nearly equaled spending reductions. Additionally, 40% of the $1.4 billion tax increase went to increased spending, not deficit reduction. Total spending wasn't cut. It was redistributed and increased. Most of O'Malley's recent "cuts" simply level fund programs, or eliminate vacant jobs. Only $156 million in ongoing annual spending was actually cut. State spending still grows by $800 million this year. The fiscal bottom line: Martin O'Malley blew a $1 billion surplus, raised taxes $1.5 billion, increased spending, and created a new $1.4 billion deficit. His reckless policies preceded the national economic downturn. Now O'Malley wants a slots bailout, not to avoid cuts in basic services, but to grow big government programs. Maryland can't tax and gamble its way to prosperity, or spend itself out of a deficit. Excessive spending and higher taxes are the root causes of Maryland's economic problems. Slots won't solve them. Slots will simply add fuel to the government's spending fire, while pulling $1.4 billion away from existing Maryland businesses. Slots, like tax increases, will hurt small businesses, kill jobs, and weaken our economy.
O'Malley Myth #2: Slots receipts will go to an Education Trust Fund, and used to increase education funding. Fact: 48.5% of the funds generated by slots will be earmarked for education. Gambling interests will receive 42.5%. The slots amendment doesn't guarantee any increase in education funding. It doesn't even protect education funding from cuts. The slots amendment only requires the state's slots revenue to be used as a source of education funding. It does not prohibit the state from shifting general fund dollars previously designated for education to other budget items, and replacing them with Education Trust Fund dollars. Sound tricky? These shell game shenanigans are business as usual. During the Special Session, legislation required $100 million of the sales tax increase go to the Transportation Trust Fund. This April, O'Malley shifted $50 million from the Transportation Trust Fund to balance the budget. Who are you going to believe when it comes to "trust" funds, Governor O'Malley, or your lying eyes?
O'Malley Myth #3: Those who supported Governor Ehrlich's slots proposal should support O'Malley's. Fact: Governor Ehrlich and many other slots supporters oppose the slots constitutional amendment because it's a bad deal. Governor O'Malley has radically changed the terms of Ehrlich's slots agenda. Under Ehrlich, slots and cuts instead of higher taxes were arguably the lesser of two evils. With O'Malley, slots after a record tax and spending increase are just an additional evil. During his first term, Governor Ronald Reagan faced with a budget shortfall. Legalized gambling was proposed as a solution. Reagan rejected the idea, stating, "The state should be funded from the strength of our people, not from their weaknesses." Reagan is right. There are no easy answers to our budget problems, but there are simple ones. The most obvious one is for government to spend no more than it receives. That's not much to ask on the heels of a $1.5 billion tax increase.
On November 4th, instead of rewarding fiscal irresponsibility, accepting another bad deal, and writing gambling interests another big check, let's tell Governor O'Malley that it's time for government to start living within its means, just like we do. Vote YES for fiscal responsibility, and vote NO on slots, Question #2.
Herb McMillan served in the Maryland House of Delegates from 2003-2007 and is currently President of the Maryland Taxpayers Association. Budgetary data provided by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services.
Showing posts with label slots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slots. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Slots Referendum Is Not The Answer
Opposition to the slots referendum is beginning to emerge from conservatives, but it hasn't come as easily as you might expect. Red Maryland has come out against slots, despite ample disagreement amongst its contributors.
Here is what the Maryland Taxpayers Association had to say:
1. Such specific language should not be in the Constitution. Since the measure appears as a ballot referendum, if passed it will appear in the Constitution of Maryland. The details of slots should be codified by statute.
2. It makes it very hard for Marylanders to change their mind. Let's say that we adopt slots, then find out slot machines create genetic deficiencies in small children that make them all want to become economists when they grow up. How horrible! With a Constitutional mandate in place, it would be very hard to repeal or even change slots--especially with the people who make money from it lining up in defense.
3. Slots are being used to avoid fiscal responsibility. This is the crux of Mr. McMillan's argument. Let's start with not raising new taxes at a special session, then maybe we can talk slots.
4. Political cowardice. I have heard some people criticize the legislature for passing the buck to the voters and not taking a stand themselves. I tend to think that there are more shrewd tactics at work, but it's an argument nonetheless.
5. The government will have more money to spend/waste. No explanation needed.
For me, there are better ways to do this, and better places to start saving/raising money.
Here is what the Maryland Taxpayers Association had to say:
The Maryland Taxpayers Association (MTA) announced its strong opposition to aIn a little known secret meeting at the Republican National Convention, I was elected spokesperson for all Conservatives living maverick-ly outside of Annapolis city limits. Speaking for them, I can say that anti-gambling fervor is not the main reason of opposition for slots. Neither is the motivation to screw O'Malley like the Dem's screwed Ehrlich's plan. Here are the reasons (some better than others) to oppose this slots package.
Constitutional Amendment legalizing slot machine gambling at a press conference
in Annapolis today.
MTA President Herb McMillan reminded fiscal
conservatives that, “Maryland can’t tax and gamble its way to prosperity, or
spend itself out of a deficit. Excessive spending and higher taxes are the root
causes of Maryland’s economic problems. Slots will not solve these problems.
Slots will simply add fuel to the government’s spending fire, while pulling 1.4
billion away from existing Maryland businesses. Slots, like tax increases, hurt
small businesses, kill jobs, and weaken our economy. It’s time for government to
tighten its belt and live within its means, just like we do.”
MTA Chairman Dee Hodges added that, “Taxpayers cannot trust Governor O’Malley with their money. Within one year, Governor O’Malley and his spendthrift friends in
the General Assembly blew a billion dollar surplus, pushed through the largest
tax hike in Maryland history, and then increased state spending by a billion
dollars. Now we have yet another billion dollar deficit. Money burns a hole in
Governor O’Malley’s pocket, and fiscal conservatives shouldn’t enable his
spending addiction.”
Mr. McMillan pointed out that, “Despite his claims
to the contrary, Governor O’Malley hasn’t cut any spending. State spending
increased by one billion last year. Governor O’Malley isn’t using higher taxes
and slots to avoid spending cuts. He’s using them to increase spending and
expand government entitlement programs.”
In closing, Mr. McMillan called on fiscally conservative Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to unite against slots. “For years, fiscal conservatives were divided over slots, but Governor O’Malley has radically changed the terms of the debate. Slots and cuts instead of higher taxes were arguably the lesser of two evils. Slots after a record tax and spending increase are just an additional evil.”
1. Such specific language should not be in the Constitution. Since the measure appears as a ballot referendum, if passed it will appear in the Constitution of Maryland. The details of slots should be codified by statute.
2. It makes it very hard for Marylanders to change their mind. Let's say that we adopt slots, then find out slot machines create genetic deficiencies in small children that make them all want to become economists when they grow up. How horrible! With a Constitutional mandate in place, it would be very hard to repeal or even change slots--especially with the people who make money from it lining up in defense.
3. Slots are being used to avoid fiscal responsibility. This is the crux of Mr. McMillan's argument. Let's start with not raising new taxes at a special session, then maybe we can talk slots.
4. Political cowardice. I have heard some people criticize the legislature for passing the buck to the voters and not taking a stand themselves. I tend to think that there are more shrewd tactics at work, but it's an argument nonetheless.
5. The government will have more money to spend/waste. No explanation needed.
For me, there are better ways to do this, and better places to start saving/raising money.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Josh Cohen Re: Slots
I'm a little late to the party here because Josh sent this out several days ago, but I get to these things when I can, and after my other priorities* are addressed.
(*My priorities:
1A. Family
1B. Mrs. Politics
1C. Work
2. Non-Blogging Politics
3. Friends
4. Bowling (I have my own ball and shoes.)
5. Blogging)
Here's is what Councilman Cohen has to say:
I would say that I generally support slots in certain locations, such as racetracks or places where Maryland Lottery products are sold. But this is more of a fairness issue and not a 'we need a budget solution' issue.
I would like to discuss briefly the idea that slots are economic vacuums that suck up disposable income..
Disposable income, or discretionary income, is what you have left after you pay all or your required expenses. So after you pay your taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, food, etc., you hopefully have some money left to save or spend as you wish.
Mr. Cohen makes the argument that slots will attract much of this disposable money, which will leave less for local businesses.
The point should be made that this is a social argument, and not an economic one. Slots are roughly the same economic engine as any other business. They are one option for people to spend their money. You could say that movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, etc. are vacuums that suck up disposable income, and you would be talking about the same thing. (In the strictest economic sense, slots are probably a better economic engine than the average business, because jobs are created for police who have to deal with more crime, counselors to deal with gambling addicts, etc.) The vacuum argument neglects the full economic process. The places that have slots will need to hire more workers; those workers will make more money; the government will receive more tax income; and those workers in turn will spend some of their discretionary income on local businesses.
To say that slots represent an ill because they would take money from local businesses is perhaps true on net, but it is an argument for protectionism--for government intervention in the private market. I'm not fond of protectionism when it's this country's goods versus another's, and I really don't like the argument when you are protecting a local business against a bigger business that perhaps is headquartered somewhere else. Competition makes the economy thrive.
So, slots: fine. Reducing state spending: more important.
(*My priorities:
1A. Family
1B. Mrs. Politics
1C. Work
2. Non-Blogging Politics
3. Friends
4. Bowling (I have my own ball and shoes.)
5. Blogging)
Here's is what Councilman Cohen has to say:
November 2, 2007
House Ways and Means Committee
Senate Budget and Taxation Committee
Dear Delegate Hixson, Senator Currie, and Members of the
Committees:
I urge you to hold the line against slot machines here in Maryland.
As elected officials, I believe that one of our first
responsibilities is, as Hippocrates wrote, to “do no harm.” In other words,
whatever actions we take during our term of office, let’s not do anything to leave
our jurisdiction worse off than we found it. This is as true for protecting the
health of the Chesapeake Bay as it is for protecting the quality of life in our
communities.
Slots will do nothing to improve our quality of life. Their social
ills are well-documented. They encourage gambling addiction and lead to more child neglect, divorce, bankruptcy and broken families, not to mention prostitution, illegal drug use and organized crime.
Their economic ills are well-documented. They are a huge vacuum
that sucks up millions of dollars in disposable income, leaving less money to
support locally-owned small businesses.
To appreciate the impact of slots on local businesses, we need look
no further than the horse racing industry’s about-face. In the 1990s the industry
opposed casinos because they would lure betting customers away from the tracks.
Only more recently, when slots were proposed at racetracks, did the racing
industry become slots’ biggest cheerleader.
Just as the state regulates other so-called “victimless” vices such
as prostitution, alcohol and drugs, the state has every right to regulate and
restrict gambling. Not only does it have the right, it has the obligation.
The only reason the state is considering slots is money. But as
any small non-profit organization can attest, it is foolish and short-sighted to
go “chasing the money.” Non-profits and state governments alike need to stay true to their values and mission. Maryland is already a wonderful state with a
tremendous quality of life. It would be foolish and short-sighted to
knowingly start down a slippery path in which the state takes on a vested
interest in turning more and more of its own citizens into gamblers.
As elected representatives, we are hired by the people to make
tough decisions. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to “do no harm” and vote
down slots legislation in this Special Session. If instead the matter goes to
referendum, I hope the question posed will be a responsible one. Instead of a
partial question about support of slots in the abstract, the question should be a
responsible one about support of slots in one’s own jurisdiction.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I would say that I generally support slots in certain locations, such as racetracks or places where Maryland Lottery products are sold. But this is more of a fairness issue and not a 'we need a budget solution' issue.
I would like to discuss briefly the idea that slots are economic vacuums that suck up disposable income..
Disposable income, or discretionary income, is what you have left after you pay all or your required expenses. So after you pay your taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, food, etc., you hopefully have some money left to save or spend as you wish.
Mr. Cohen makes the argument that slots will attract much of this disposable money, which will leave less for local businesses.
The point should be made that this is a social argument, and not an economic one. Slots are roughly the same economic engine as any other business. They are one option for people to spend their money. You could say that movie theaters, bowling alleys, restaurants, etc. are vacuums that suck up disposable income, and you would be talking about the same thing. (In the strictest economic sense, slots are probably a better economic engine than the average business, because jobs are created for police who have to deal with more crime, counselors to deal with gambling addicts, etc.) The vacuum argument neglects the full economic process. The places that have slots will need to hire more workers; those workers will make more money; the government will receive more tax income; and those workers in turn will spend some of their discretionary income on local businesses.
To say that slots represent an ill because they would take money from local businesses is perhaps true on net, but it is an argument for protectionism--for government intervention in the private market. I'm not fond of protectionism when it's this country's goods versus another's, and I really don't like the argument when you are protecting a local business against a bigger business that perhaps is headquartered somewhere else. Competition makes the economy thrive.
So, slots: fine. Reducing state spending: more important.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Taxes
AP has not reviewed many letters to the editor recently--partly because we have covered many of the topics of these letters already, and partly because MTV has been airing back-to-back episodes of Made.
But the time has come. This letter is a tad wacky, but touches a few important issues:
Gov. Martin O'Malley wants to ease the state's deficit by not letting the rich pay just the 4.75 percent paid by everyone who earns $3,000 or more, a setup he calls "patently unfair."
The letter writer is referring to the Maryland Income tax. Now then, collecting the SAME PERCENTAGE of taxes from EVERYONE is THE FAIREST tax system you could possibly have. O'Malley's quote was:
"O'Malley called the structure "patently unfair" this week, saying at a Democratic breakfast in Frederick that Peter Angelos, the wealthy trial lawyer who owns the Baltimore Orioles, should not pay the same rate as "the woman who cleans his office".
Uhhh, geez....Governor....didn't anyone tell you: 4.75% of what Peter Angelos makes is a lot MORE than 4.75% of what the housekeeper makes. Why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate? The American Dream is to work hard and get rich...why are we penalized for doing this? Ok letter writer, continue.
Why not have the rich pay 10 percent for incomes over $100,000 and 20 percent for those over $200,000?
Why stop there? How about 100% for $1 million? Great. So the most anybody can make is $1 million, because every dollar after that goes to the government. Then, nobody would have the incentive to keep working hard, and productivity would decline! Excellent! Wait a minute....
Constellation Energy's chief executive officer is taking home $20 million a year.
Making money is not a crime; it is not evil. 99.97% of all people in history would have liked to make as much money as possible. I rather enjoy how you singled out this corporation, being that they are involved in the electric rate hikes, and so forth. The fact is, he is paid that much because that's how valuable he is to the company. If Constellation Energy thought they could achieve the same results by paying less money, I promise you they would do it.
The rich get a lot of their money out of the middle class and the poor.
I can't let this one go. First of all, this is such a vague generalization that it can't be true, even if we understood what you were trying to say. People are paid what they are worth; sometimes there are distortions and people don't make exactly what they are worth, but in the long run your compensation equals the value of goods or services that you produce.
The important point here is that in a capitalist economy without coercion, the value of goods and services is determined through trillions of VOLUNTARY transactions. So, if a middle class or poor person decides to buy something, they are by definition using the price system of the free market to transmit the message that the good or service improves their life. So long as money is spent voluntarily, transfers of money from rich to poor, or poor to rich--indeed all transfers--are beneficial to both parties. (Such a transaction is said to be Pareto Optimal)
Meanwhile, Senate President Mike Miller, D-Calvert, wants to hike the "regressive" sales tax--which, in hitting all buyers at the same rate, hurts the rich less, and hurts the middle class and poor more.
IF A TAX HITS ALL BUYERS AT THE SAME RATE, HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY HURT SOME BUYERS MORE THAN OTHERS???????
House Speaker Mike Busch, D-Annapolis, wants another regressive measure, a 5 percent hike in state college tuition. His opposition to higher tuition was one of the big reasons many of his constituents campaigned and voted for him in 2006.
First of all, he is one of the most 'machine-backed' politicians in the state, and his constituents damn near voted him out of office in 2006. If it hadn't been for such widespread dislike of the Republican President at that time, I bet we wouldn't be having this conversation. Second of all, a hike in college tuition is not regressive in the manner that you speak of because it is not a tax--it is not imposed on all taxpayers by the government. It is imposed on people who CHOOSE to attend the university. On a side note, tuition freezes are bad.
Many parents and students have already been forced into debt to meet tuition increases. Mr Busch's hike would be a vicious blow to lower middle class and poor families who struggle to get their kids through state colleges.
Going into debt is not an uncommon practice for college. People calculate that going to college will help increase their human capital--an investment in themselves--that will help them earn more money in the future so they can pay off their debt and then some. Banks think this too, and will give you student loans. If somebody decides this process is not worth it, they can CHOOSE not to go to college.
Back across the hall, Mr. Miller is pushing for his favorite plague on the poor--slot machines. It's a boldface lie that slots will ease the deficit. The state's take must finance more regulators and inspectors, and more counselors for gambling addicts and for the families of gamblers who commit suicide.
Do the poor not have minds of their own? If they think slots are a plague, they can avoid them like anyone else could. Also, how can slots NOT ease the deficit? Estimates place the boost in taxes from slots at $500-$800 million. How many inspectors do you need? Also, here's an idea: families support themselves and don't allow their relatives to get addicted to gambling or commit suicide. In the horrible and unlucky event that a relative does commit suicide, why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay for the grieving process?
The kneejerk reaction to the deficit is to saddle the weak (and) the poor with it. Where are the ideas for making the strong and the rich--and the corporations, developers and utilities--shoulder some of it? Half of Maryland's largest for-profit corporations pay no income tax at all!
J.A. HOAGE, Severna Park
OMG!! The top 10% of income earners pay like 65% of the total taxes. I would say that the rich not only shoulder 'some' of the tax burden--they shoulder most of it. Also, do you work for either a corporation, developer, or utility? Odds are you do, or someone close to you does. If you keep penalizing corporations, they will move to a different state that is nicer to them. This is why some corporations (legally) avoid some taxes now. And, if you keep raising taxes on corporations, they will face a higher cost structure. They will have to raise prices on whatever they are selling. Since fewer people will buy from that corporation after they raise the prices, the corporation will not have as much work or make as much money. The you, or someone close to you, will lose your/their job.
There is no magic tax solution. All taxes necessarily re-distribute income and create deadweight loss. The less the government spends, the less this will happen.
But the time has come. This letter is a tad wacky, but touches a few important issues:
Gov. Martin O'Malley wants to ease the state's deficit by not letting the rich pay just the 4.75 percent paid by everyone who earns $3,000 or more, a setup he calls "patently unfair."
The letter writer is referring to the Maryland Income tax. Now then, collecting the SAME PERCENTAGE of taxes from EVERYONE is THE FAIREST tax system you could possibly have. O'Malley's quote was:
"O'Malley called the structure "patently unfair" this week, saying at a Democratic breakfast in Frederick that Peter Angelos, the wealthy trial lawyer who owns the Baltimore Orioles, should not pay the same rate as "the woman who cleans his office".
Uhhh, geez....Governor....didn't anyone tell you: 4.75% of what Peter Angelos makes is a lot MORE than 4.75% of what the housekeeper makes. Why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate? The American Dream is to work hard and get rich...why are we penalized for doing this? Ok letter writer, continue.
Why not have the rich pay 10 percent for incomes over $100,000 and 20 percent for those over $200,000?
Why stop there? How about 100% for $1 million? Great. So the most anybody can make is $1 million, because every dollar after that goes to the government. Then, nobody would have the incentive to keep working hard, and productivity would decline! Excellent! Wait a minute....
Constellation Energy's chief executive officer is taking home $20 million a year.
Making money is not a crime; it is not evil. 99.97% of all people in history would have liked to make as much money as possible. I rather enjoy how you singled out this corporation, being that they are involved in the electric rate hikes, and so forth. The fact is, he is paid that much because that's how valuable he is to the company. If Constellation Energy thought they could achieve the same results by paying less money, I promise you they would do it.
The rich get a lot of their money out of the middle class and the poor.
I can't let this one go. First of all, this is such a vague generalization that it can't be true, even if we understood what you were trying to say. People are paid what they are worth; sometimes there are distortions and people don't make exactly what they are worth, but in the long run your compensation equals the value of goods or services that you produce.
The important point here is that in a capitalist economy without coercion, the value of goods and services is determined through trillions of VOLUNTARY transactions. So, if a middle class or poor person decides to buy something, they are by definition using the price system of the free market to transmit the message that the good or service improves their life. So long as money is spent voluntarily, transfers of money from rich to poor, or poor to rich--indeed all transfers--are beneficial to both parties. (Such a transaction is said to be Pareto Optimal)
Meanwhile, Senate President Mike Miller, D-Calvert, wants to hike the "regressive" sales tax--which, in hitting all buyers at the same rate, hurts the rich less, and hurts the middle class and poor more.
IF A TAX HITS ALL BUYERS AT THE SAME RATE, HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY HURT SOME BUYERS MORE THAN OTHERS???????
House Speaker Mike Busch, D-Annapolis, wants another regressive measure, a 5 percent hike in state college tuition. His opposition to higher tuition was one of the big reasons many of his constituents campaigned and voted for him in 2006.
First of all, he is one of the most 'machine-backed' politicians in the state, and his constituents damn near voted him out of office in 2006. If it hadn't been for such widespread dislike of the Republican President at that time, I bet we wouldn't be having this conversation. Second of all, a hike in college tuition is not regressive in the manner that you speak of because it is not a tax--it is not imposed on all taxpayers by the government. It is imposed on people who CHOOSE to attend the university. On a side note, tuition freezes are bad.
Many parents and students have already been forced into debt to meet tuition increases. Mr Busch's hike would be a vicious blow to lower middle class and poor families who struggle to get their kids through state colleges.
Going into debt is not an uncommon practice for college. People calculate that going to college will help increase their human capital--an investment in themselves--that will help them earn more money in the future so they can pay off their debt and then some. Banks think this too, and will give you student loans. If somebody decides this process is not worth it, they can CHOOSE not to go to college.
Back across the hall, Mr. Miller is pushing for his favorite plague on the poor--slot machines. It's a boldface lie that slots will ease the deficit. The state's take must finance more regulators and inspectors, and more counselors for gambling addicts and for the families of gamblers who commit suicide.
Do the poor not have minds of their own? If they think slots are a plague, they can avoid them like anyone else could. Also, how can slots NOT ease the deficit? Estimates place the boost in taxes from slots at $500-$800 million. How many inspectors do you need? Also, here's an idea: families support themselves and don't allow their relatives to get addicted to gambling or commit suicide. In the horrible and unlucky event that a relative does commit suicide, why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay for the grieving process?
The kneejerk reaction to the deficit is to saddle the weak (and) the poor with it. Where are the ideas for making the strong and the rich--and the corporations, developers and utilities--shoulder some of it? Half of Maryland's largest for-profit corporations pay no income tax at all!
J.A. HOAGE, Severna Park
OMG!! The top 10% of income earners pay like 65% of the total taxes. I would say that the rich not only shoulder 'some' of the tax burden--they shoulder most of it. Also, do you work for either a corporation, developer, or utility? Odds are you do, or someone close to you does. If you keep penalizing corporations, they will move to a different state that is nicer to them. This is why some corporations (legally) avoid some taxes now. And, if you keep raising taxes on corporations, they will face a higher cost structure. They will have to raise prices on whatever they are selling. Since fewer people will buy from that corporation after they raise the prices, the corporation will not have as much work or make as much money. The you, or someone close to you, will lose your/their job.
There is no magic tax solution. All taxes necessarily re-distribute income and create deadweight loss. The less the government spends, the less this will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)