The critics of Christ always pretend that we can be neutral about this. It’s not a matter of whether you share Jesus or not. It’s about which god you are representing when you speak…
A news site that self-consciously reports the news from a progressive, liberal perspective has reported on the offensive actions of a lawmaker from Minnesota. While debating an amendment to a bill to close offshore tax loopholes, a Democratic lawmaker asked Representative Abigail Whelan a non-sensical question: “Do you think benefiting people who are hiding money in Liberia is worth raising taxes on your own constituents?”
Here’s the background. The state government is about to pass a tax bill to raise some taxes, and lower other taxes (presumably), but the net effect will probably be to raise tax revenue overall. What government self-consciously reduces the overall tax revenue it receives?
Here’s the Democrat’s argument. The state government has a budget. It’s going to spend money on lots of boondoggles. Some rich men are “hiding” money offshore, which means they aren’t paying state taxes on that money. Should we raise taxes on the middle class to fund these boondoggles, or should the rich men pay for them?
Trending: Fuel for Thought
Which would be better?
POORLY WORDED QUESTION
I can understand her frustration. There are lots of problems with that Democrat’s question.
These rich businessmen aren’t “hiding” money if there’s a legitimate law that lets them do it. If it’s a “loophole,” it means it’s not illegal. These are smart men who hire tax attorneys and accounts to make sure the government steals as little of their money as possible.
We should all be so wise. Unfortunately, most of us can’t afford to hire our own tax attorneys and accountants and setup government-backed companies to help us hide our own money. We’re like bleeding swimmers in an ocean of sharks.
Instead of answering the question, she dodged it completely. It’s a foolish question anyway. It’s not even logical. Why is “not raising taxes on anybody” not an option? Why must we assume that we have to raise taxes on somebody? Why not cut the budget instead?
So, she dodged. It was an idiotic question…