13 ms·

As long as the bills proposing tax increases also contain where the tax money is going to be allocated, I'd be all for it. America's track record for directing

by snoman 3y ago

As long as the bills proposing tax increases also contain where the tax money is going to be allocated, I'd be all for it. America's track record for directing tax money towards the public good, is poor.

taeric 3y ago
Nobody has a track record of using money well. Basically period. At best, you can find some examples that were short lived, but by and large, building wealth turns to either wasting it, or hoarding it. With that framing, I honestly don't like "as long as we tightly control where it is spent" arguments. They all beg the question that we know where money should be spent. Where history is a great guide that, no, we didn't. We have examples to look to, to be sure. Some decent guidelines, as it were. But they are often last year's guidelines, and that year came and went. So, I'm game to "keep our eyes open" as we increase allocation. But, by and large, I think insisting on winning bets is a fools errand that will likely cause more problems than it solves.
yojo 3y ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I disagree with the idea that everything be pre-allocated, but you make the point in a civil way. Earmarking everything is almost impossible to do right. Tax revenue streams go up or down from forces outside the legislature’s control. If there’s a bumper crop of corporate receipts, the right move might be to save them in a rainy day general fund for disasters, or when times are lean, etc. Put another way, if we can’t seem to spend money well doing it in an annual budgeting process, I don’t know how we will do any better trying to do the same thing years in advance when the tax is passed.
- taeric 3y ago
  I can't see that it is getting downvoted. Agreed that they were civil, so apologies if my response sounded uncivil. I legitimately think it is a trap of a framing. While also hating the idea of wasting money. :D
supertrope 3y ago
Even this doesn’t work. A drug tax earmarked for school funding can be followed with a coincidental cut to school funding in the same amount. Money is fungible.

by snoman 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Nobody has a track record of using money well. Basically period. At best, you can find some examples that were short lived, but by and large, building wealth turns to either wasting it, or hoarding it. With that framing, I honestly don't like "as long as we tightly control where it is spent" arguments. They all beg the question that we know where money should be spent. Where history is a great guide that, no, we didn't. We have examples to look to, to be sure. Some decent guidelines, as it were. But they are often last year's guidelines, and that year came and went. So, I'm game to "keep our eyes open" as we increase allocation. But, by and large, I think insisting on winning bets is a fools errand that will likely cause more problems than it solves.

yojo 3y ago

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I disagree with the idea that everything be pre-allocated, but you make the point in a civil way. Earmarking everything is almost impossible to do right. Tax revenue streams go up or down from forces outside the legislature’s control. If there’s a bumper crop of corporate receipts, the right move might be to save them in a rainy day general fund for disasters, or when times are lean, etc. Put another way, if we can’t seem to spend money well doing it in an annual budgeting process, I don’t know how we will do any better trying to do the same thing years in advance when the tax is passed.

taeric 3y ago
I can't see that it is getting downvoted. Agreed that they were civil, so apologies if my response sounded uncivil. I legitimately think it is a trap of a framing. While also hating the idea of wasting money. :D

supertrope 3y ago

Even this doesn’t work. A drug tax earmarked for school funding can be followed with a coincidental cut to school funding in the same amount. Money is fungible.