LogFAQs > #925141715

adjl posted...

Broken_Zeus posted...

...or crime will massively go down because people will need to get jobs which, in turn, will keep them too occupied to get into trouble.

Man, if only there were countries in the world with no social security systems in place, whose crime rates you could cite in making that prediction. That'd be nice.

...you mean the nations without real economies? Even if you gave those areas social security, they'd still have rampant crime. (And you know what turns those places around? INDUSTRY!) And keep in mind that a lot of the US's crime is carried out by people on benefits of some kind so the idea that we're paying people benefits so they won't commit crimes has never worked and, in fact, may have encouraged things. Keep in mind that youth employment programs have resulted in a net reduction in crime.

adjl posted...

Broken_Zeus posted...

Likewise, you aren't "paying for tax cuts" since a tax cut isn't an expense, it's a reduction in revenue.

Let's say I'm collecting $100 per year from you and $100 per year from your neighbour, covering my total expenses of $200. I decide to reduce the amount I'm taking from your neighbour to $50, but my expenses stay the same, so I start collecting $150 from you to cover the difference. In that case, you're effectively paying for the cut I gave your neighbour. Suggesting otherwise is needlessly pedantic, even by my standards.

The problem with your hypothetical is that you're assuming that a shortfall in revenue has to be met somewhere else instead of either lowering expenses (which is what's being done here) or not trying to cover the shortfall (ie, adding to the budget deficit). At the end of the day, however, that's STILL not an expense. That's not being pedantic, that's understanding basic finance.
---

Gamefaqs cannot handle my #BrokenBrilliance