6 ms·

Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at

Very common scam. Introduce revenue source, say "it's going to the schools/teachers." Do that for a bit, defund the prior source of cash so the teachers are at what they were before. When it's time to run the next scan rinse and repeat. Seen it done with about every new tax introduced. Teachers still get paid shit and other taxes either barely move or go up.

Loughla 2y ago
I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you have? I don't know about that.
- webstrand 2y ago
  Another example would be various gas taxes were supposed to be for the maintenance of roads but now a fair portion of the revenue is diverted for other purposes. It depends on the state.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    That seems unlikely. The movement of money is usually the other way: fuel taxes are not high enough to cover the expenses and it is made up from the general fund. It’s a huge subsidy for roads.
- mminer237 2y ago
  The lottery is the big thing.
- blululu 2y ago
  The lottery is another example where tickets allegedly fund education. The reality is that most of a state’s budget is set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. From an accounting standpoint you can’t really target a specific program for additional funding under these circumstances.
  - mburns 2y ago
    >The reality is that most of a state’s budget is set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. Isn't this just conflating states that do that with other states that don't? Oregon keeps the general fund and the lottery fund separate, 53% of the lottery fund goes to education (the rest to other voter-approved programs).
    - Retric 2y ago
      No because you can cut funding by slowing the annual increase from the general fund. Be that for inflation or just population growth. Year 0: general fund hands 100m to schools. Year 1: General fund hands 101m / year and lotteries add 10m to that yay! 111m for school, or except ‘inflation’ was 2% so it’s more like 109m. Year 2: General fund hands 102m / year and lottery adds 10.2m, ‘inflation’ was 2%. So adjusting for inflation Schools get ~108 million and general fund only spends ~98m. Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
      - mburns 2y ago
        Backdoor defunding by not adjusting for inflation is definitely a thing but that seems like a separate issue from what I was responding to re: where the funds come from and if they are kept separate, not how much should be spent in total. > Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery. The lottery picking up the slack so that the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point.
        Retric 2y ago
        > The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point. That’s identical to the lottery just putting money directly into the general fund. Unless the funding source results in an increase in total funding this stuff is pure theatre.
        2y ago
- alostpuppy 2y ago
  Marijuana tax revenue is a big one as well. They pulled the same bait and switch in the state of Nevada
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    Which is why I'll never support these short sighted "legalization" efforts. I see no utility in arresting someone for smoking a joint in their own home. Arming the government with yet another source of tax revenue is simply unacceptable
- ars 2y ago
  "70 Years Later, Pennsylvanians Still Paying Johnstown Flood Tax" https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvanians-still-paying-johnstown-flood-tax-70-years-later/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvanians-still...
loeg 2y ago
I'm not sure I'd call it a scam. It certainly takes advantage of the fact that voters don't seem to really believe (or understand) that money is fungible.
- koolba 2y ago
  It’s always a scam because money is fungible and unless the underlying asset itself is held by a separate entity, you’re always at the whim of the party in power.
  - loeg 2y ago
    Are you asserting that raising taxes is always a "scam?"
    - lazide 2y ago
      I’m assuming they are saying it is when it’s based on a lie/bait and switch. Aka a scam.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Not OP, but tying some new revenue source to some existing expenditure very often is. A classic example in the US would be lottery and casino revenues. Bills or referrenda legalising these (fairly recent, largely since the 1980s) were generally sold to the public as a source of revenue for public education. In the case of California, those services had been paid for through state and local property taxes which were capped (or kneecapped, depending on your point of view) through the 1978 referrendum Proposition 13, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13>. In the case of lottery / casino revenues, the initial messaging was that these would provide additional funds for education. In time, general funds allocations for education have declined, justified by the availability of gambling taxes, funds, and fees. That's on top of further problems and externalities of gambling, including gambling addiction, organised crime, political corroption, and the like. See for example: "The Big Lie: Gambling and Education Funding" (2012) <https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-and-education-funding/ https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-a...>.

Loughla 2y ago

I'm not trying to be shitty, but what other examples do you have? I don't know about that.

webstrand 2y ago
Another example would be various gas taxes were supposed to be for the maintenance of roads but now a fair portion of the revenue is diverted for other purposes. It depends on the state.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  That seems unlikely. The movement of money is usually the other way: fuel taxes are not high enough to cover the expenses and it is made up from the general fund. It’s a huge subsidy for roads.
mminer237 2y ago
The lottery is the big thing.
blululu 2y ago
The lottery is another example where tickets allegedly fund education. The reality is that most of a state’s budget is set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. From an accounting standpoint you can’t really target a specific program for additional funding under these circumstances.
- mburns 2y ago
  >The reality is that most of a state’s budget is set holistically and paid for out of the general fund. Isn't this just conflating states that do that with other states that don't? Oregon keeps the general fund and the lottery fund separate, 53% of the lottery fund goes to education (the rest to other voter-approved programs).
  - Retric 2y ago
    No because you can cut funding by slowing the annual increase from the general fund. Be that for inflation or just population growth. Year 0: general fund hands 100m to schools. Year 1: General fund hands 101m / year and lotteries add 10m to that yay! 111m for school, or except ‘inflation’ was 2% so it’s more like 109m. Year 2: General fund hands 102m / year and lottery adds 10.2m, ‘inflation’ was 2%. So adjusting for inflation Schools get ~108 million and general fund only spends ~98m. Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery.
    - mburns 2y ago
      Backdoor defunding by not adjusting for inflation is definitely a thing but that seems like a separate issue from what I was responding to re: where the funds come from and if they are kept separate, not how much should be spent in total. > Repeat as needed until general fund is handing the equivalent of 90m with the slack taken up by the lottery. The lottery picking up the slack so that the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > The lottery picking up the slack so the general fund doesn’t have to do all of it is the whole point. That’s identical to the lottery just putting money directly into the general fund. Unless the funding source results in an increase in total funding this stuff is pure theatre.
        2y ago
alostpuppy 2y ago
Marijuana tax revenue is a big one as well. They pulled the same bait and switch in the state of Nevada
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  Which is why I'll never support these short sighted "legalization" efforts. I see no utility in arresting someone for smoking a joint in their own home. Arming the government with yet another source of tax revenue is simply unacceptable
ars 2y ago
"70 Years Later, Pennsylvanians Still Paying Johnstown Flood Tax" https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvanians-still-paying-johnstown-flood-tax-70-years-later/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/pennsylvanians-still...

loeg 2y ago

I'm not sure I'd call it a scam. It certainly takes advantage of the fact that voters don't seem to really believe (or understand) that money is fungible.

koolba 2y ago
It’s always a scam because money is fungible and unless the underlying asset itself is held by a separate entity, you’re always at the whim of the party in power.
- loeg 2y ago
  Are you asserting that raising taxes is always a "scam?"
  - lazide 2y ago
    I’m assuming they are saying it is when it’s based on a lie/bait and switch. Aka a scam.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Not OP, but tying some new revenue source to some existing expenditure very often is. A classic example in the US would be lottery and casino revenues. Bills or referrenda legalising these (fairly recent, largely since the 1980s) were generally sold to the public as a source of revenue for public education. In the case of California, those services had been paid for through state and local property taxes which were capped (or kneecapped, depending on your point of view) through the 1978 referrendum Proposition 13, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13>. In the case of lottery / casino revenues, the initial messaging was that these would provide additional funds for education. In time, general funds allocations for education have declined, justified by the availability of gambling taxes, funds, and fees. That's on top of further problems and externalities of gambling, including gambling addiction, organised crime, political corroption, and the like. See for example: "The Big Lie: Gambling and Education Funding" (2012) <https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-and-education-funding/ https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2012/10/the-big-lie-gambling-a...>.