I should start off by saying I don’t know much about the Tea Party other than what I see on the news, but I understand “Tea” is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. One way to lower taxes (or at least help prevent them from being raised) is to allow gay marriages.
For Prop. 8, the “Fiscal Impact” that was included in the official CA voters guide said:
Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.
Tens of millions of dollars in FREE tax revenue! No one claiming to be a fiscal conservative can come up with a good argument against it. Supporting the Constitution (equal protection) and making money? Seems like a no-brainer. And it would show how libertarian they really are.
It’s another example of people letting their ideology get in the way of rational behavior. In this case, voters put their morals ahead of their financial best interest. (In response to budget deficits, sales tax has gone up since Prop 8 passed. Not saying it wouldn’t have happened otherwise, but something to consider.) To me, opposition to gay marriage is a curious position, especially among those calling themselves “taxed enough already.”
For a group ostensibly concerned with taxes, why not start with some low-hanging fruit?
Disclaimer: The Tea Party itself is not explicitly opposed to gay marriage, although I suspect a majority of its members are. The Tea Party’s official stance on gay marriage (and other social issues) is to not have one, and defer to state’s rights.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: economics
