Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly
It's not ridiculous at all because that's exactly what is happening. Again, you are admitting the fund is being subsidized by other taxes yet trying to find a way around it with a technicality that does not even apply.
There is no analogy. There is no other explanation. Money comes in, money goes out. That's how taxes work. That's how this tax was designed.
|
I wouldn't call it a technicality...when a fund is setup, it's supposed to be used only for that purpose... when there is a surplus the fund grows, so when in later years revenues slow down, there is $$ in the reserve... but because of mismanagement, the $$ that was supposed to grow the reserve in the fund was stolen for other purposes and so there is no reserve...
it seems ridiculous to call giving back what was stolen a "subsidy"...