[img]http://i.imgur.com/PBBdLOT.jpg[/img]
[quote]AUSTIN, Texas – Gov. Rick Perry will use his State of the State address to call for amending the Texas Constitution to allow the state to return tax money it collects but doesn't spend back to its citizens, according to an excerpt of the speech released to The Associated Press.[/quote]
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/perry-proposes-amending-texas-constitution-to-allow-state-to-return-excess/[/url]
Pretty interesting.
Maybe this'll make up for that commercial. :v:
Rick's a good guy. He just needs to realize the separation of church from state.
[QUOTE=KnightVista;39419973]Rick's a good guy. He just needs to realize the separation of church from state.[/QUOTE]
was this not the same guy who said Gays are Evil and should not be in the Army. ?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;39420099]was this not the same guy who said Gays are Evil and should not be in the Army. ?[/QUOTE]
That might have been Rick Santorum, he was borderline fascist :smile:
[QUOTE=KnightVista;39419973]Rick's a good guy. He just needs to realize the separation of church from state.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no he's still a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39420127]That might have been Rick Santorum, he was borderline fascist :smile:[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfVqGBE6JI[/media]
sure about that?
[quote]Today, I'm calling for a mechanism to be put in place so when we do bring in more than we need, we'll have the option of returning tax money directly to the people who paid it[/quote]
I'm getting an impression that if anything, it will be disproportionately given to higher income people.
This means absolutely nothing because the state will spend everything except for what you overpaid. Stupid-ass stunt by a moron with lips bigger than his dick.
Oh Rick.... nothing you can do can repair your image.
I hate living in the same city as him, and being too lazy to find him and call him stupid in person.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;39420505]This means absolutely nothing because the state will spend everything except for what you overpaid. [B]Stupid-ass stunt by a moron with lips bigger than his dick.[/B][/QUOTE]
chill out, man.
[editline]30th January 2013[/editline]
what if they also slipped in the reverse mechanism: when the state spends more than the they take in, they take it from your pockets. two rounds of taxes.
How is this a bad thing? it's pretty bro
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39420609]How is this a bad thing? it's pretty bro[/QUOTE]
It won't really do anything at all, it's one of those "feel good" bills.
dis nigga know how to look after a brother
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
I'd rather democratic designation of tax-money spending by the tax paying citizen though
Good idea, take money away from the government. That's brilliant! Then later on, when taxes go back to them, they'll want/need even more. Go home, Rick Perry, you and your clones are of no use to the USA.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;39420926]this in conjunction with a bill to make road workers not work on already nice roads would be cool[/QUOTE]
I don't think road workers get set up working on roads just for shits and giggles; generally they'll be laying new cables or pipes, doing maintainence as per an annual/biannual/triennial pre-decided schedule, etc
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
wait a second
how do they have any tax money left over when the national debt is so humungous
[QUOTE=SL128;39420465]I'm getting an impression that it will be disproportionately given to higher income people.[/QUOTE]
you mean disproportionately returned to those who payed disproportionate amounts?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39420980]I don't think road workers get set up working on roads just for shits and giggles; generally they'll be laying new cables or pipes, doing maintainence as per an annual/biannual/triennial pre-decided schedule, etc
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
wait a second
how do they have any tax money left over when the national debt is so humungous[/QUOTE]
Debt isn't a lack of money.
We have money, our GDP is huge. Our debt is the money we borrowed and aren't planning to pay back.
[QUOTE=cccritical;39421017]you mean disproportionately returned to those who payed disproportionate amounts?[/QUOTE] unless they plan on tracking every person's purchase and returning the sales tax paid, the poor are the ones who will be paying disproportionately and be way under-compensated. the rich would benefit greatly from this unless they decided to do some economic studies and decide how much money to return in sales tax to people.
good idea, but hard to implement.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39421145]good idea, but hard to implement.[/QUOTE]
i don't get it, what's with all of the more politically conservative posters coming out of the woodwork and supporting this bill?
it doesn't make sense, from any political point of view, to be frank; it just feels like fluff that's only meant to cause a positive response from the public, but it doesn't actually do anything useful
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39420980]I don't think road workers get set up working on roads just for shits and giggles; generally they'll be laying new cables or pipes, doing maintainence as per an annual/biannual/triennial pre-decided schedule, etc
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
wait a second
how do they have any tax money left over when the national debt is so humungous[/QUOTE]
He is talking about state tax money, states just don't give the federal government any taxes that the state collected and didn't use.
Yeah, this seems like Perry. Perry was the candidate that swayed whatever way the money went. He flip-flopped more than Romney during the campaign. Corporate prostitute- he'd be whatever you wanted if you paid him. Which, in the end, is why he didn't make it. Too weak on his positions, because he needed to be able to break them down if need be.
Not a stretch to say that he would be willing to give back taxes collected by the state to an extent- helps his corporate sponsors.
Obviously Texas isn't spending it's tax money wisely if it manages to have some left over
In any place that runs on a budget, there's usually a mad dash at the end of the fiscal year to burn all the money they have left over. This is because having a surplus implies that you're getting too much money, and people want to keep/expand their current budgets. If this bill passes, it'll only increase the amount of waste, as any surplus that could be saved/put to use will instead be wasted to ensure that they don't have to give it up.
[QUOTE=The Letter Q;39421423]In any place that runs on a budget, there's usually a mad dash at the end of the fiscal year to burn all the money they have left over. This is because having a surplus implies that you're getting too much money, and people want to keep/expand their current budgets. If this bill passes, it'll only increase the amount of waste, as any surplus that could be saved/put to use will instead be wasted to ensure that they don't have to give it up.[/QUOTE]
They could easily reinvest it into social programs or infrastructure, though. Texas especially, which has shit in both categories tanks to its heavy individualist and privatized culture, and is suffering from a massive underemployment problem.
Just burning the money on bullshit is a waste.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39421326]Obviously Texas isn't spending it's tax money wisely if it manages to have some left over[/QUOTE]
Because big spending is the only wise way to go about state budgeting, right?
I honestly don't have a problem with this. If the state is running a budget surplus, why not recycle that money back into the economy? As someone who earns just enough money to effectively be taxed on income and not exactly live comfortably, I'd appreciate my government handing back at least some of that tax money if they don't end up spending it.
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39421504']They could easily reinvest it into social programs or infrastructure, though. Texas especially, which has shit in both categories tanks to its heavy individualist and privatized culture, and is suffering from a massive underemployment problem.
Just burning the money on bullshit is a waste.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it could be "easily" done to reinvest in those kinds of things though. If you're a government official you don't just say "let's throw some money at this" or "let's throw some money at that". Anything involving spending money in government would be (I imagine, at least) heavily scrutinised and be a large process.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;39421699]
I don't think it could be "easily" done to reinvest in those kinds of things though. If you're a government official you don't just say "let's throw some money at this" or "let's throw some money at that". Anything involving spending money in government would be (I imagine, at least) heavily scrutinised and be a large process.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the government, but it's not a difficult process. A few members of my family have been working for various counties and the state for a long while now, sometimes for the court, once for the sheriff's office, in community health and in county social work. At the state level, it's not very difficult to establish that sort of thing- obviously for social projects or something, or some sort of welfare system, they would need to establish offices and quotas and hire and organize and develop, etc, but for infrastructural stuff, if it's anything like my state, I know that really they literally could just re-allocate it.
Same for alot of the social programs and offices, really. Practically every office that I've had personal experience with, mostly through family like I've said, has had chronic funding issues and could do with more funds. But then again, I'm not sure how it is in Texas, and they were never as bad off as my state's economy, especially since their government is far less reaching and overall alot smaller.
I'd rather them give the extra to our under-funded schools.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
