3 ms·
> You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax.
by ProAm 10y ago
> You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax.
If their primary purpose is to take care of the roads, that should be one of the first items that gets funded with taxes they already collect, therein lies the problem people have. It's not like they have no money, it was improperly allocated to the point where they were in the negative to meet the needs required of them. We are not a country with a lot of social services, we have very few. It a case of the government not doing their jobs well and taking more money cover that fact up.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y agoMy point is that services don't come from thin air. There may have been things besides the roads that may need to get funded every year and not have enough surplus to cover the roads. You may even have priorities that are important enough that even if running them was a inefficient, you may need to fund them anyway while you try and improve efficiency. Introducing a tax so that you could finally fund a project is not at face value a bad idea. I am not familiar with this particular instance. But the story about Clinton as it stands is not really relevant. Much like this sub-thread.