In the fall, I posted an income tax proposal — to increase the personal exemptions substantially while also increasing the rate substantially. As framed, it would have been revenue neutral. It would have exempted roughly half of current income taxpayers entirely, decreased income taxes for another third and increased income taxes only for the highest earning fifteen percent.
I felt that I ought to report back on how that concept has evolved for me over the past few months. I did file the legislation, but I have concluded that it has no legs. On the one hand, the rate increase completely spooks both taxpayers and politicians — even though most would see a net decrease, the trust is not there: People are afraid we would use the exemption to sell the rate increase and then take the exemption away. On the other hand, because the proposal is revenue neutral, the usual advocates for new revenues are not powerfully motivated to support it. For the proposal to be successful, there would need to be a massive education and trust building campaign and the resources for that don’t seem forthcoming.
So, on balance my conclusion is that the proposal and the thought around it is valuable, but it will only have practical significance if the political consensus approaches a point where it seems necessary to raise the sales or income taxes. At that point, including a significant increase in the exemption might be a viable idea. We’re not at that point yet.
I know, I know — it requires a constitutional amendment, and it’s been tried unsuccessfully a couple of times before. But it is nonetheless the best solution, since it can simultaneously give a tax cut (both in terms of rate and dollars) to lower-income taxpayers, while also generating additional revenues for the state by increasing the rate on the highest earners.
<
p>Is there any stomach for this?
Ultimately, our structurally imbalanced taxes, which rely too much on “boom/bust funding” from capitol gains taxes must be reformed.
<
p>I am reminded of Joseph’s counsel to Pharoah, that during the fat years, money needed to be put aside for the lean years. That was great advice, Pharoah is said to have constructed graineries.
<
p>However, during our “fat years” in Massachusetts – the 90s, the socalled “Massachusetts Miracle” years rather than filling our “granaries” and knowing that the lean years would follow, taxes that did not rely on capitol gains being flush were cut – about 3 billion worth, in fact.
<
p>Joseph, the Old Testament Prophet, would have advised instead to “fill the graneries” for the lean years because capitol gains taxes are notorious for wild swings in income generation.
<
p>Myself, like FDR in the 30s, I do favor a progressive, or graduated tax scheme, and have never understood the aversion to this in this state [Disclosure I was not born, raised, or educated in Massachusetts but moved here when my personality was fully formed and my education completed.]
<
p>David of the Old Testament got the point. His was the right idea; the right rate (1 measure out of 5 went to storeage or 20%); and a flat tax. Great advice: 15% federal tax and a 5% state tax! Both flat. Go Yahweh; He’s obviously conservative. I can imagine the conversation:
<
p>Yahweh: ok, it’s settled 1 out of 5 to government for the bad times
Satin: The government needs more than 20%, you think gold crowns grow on trees. And my pension! Also, BTW, think of the children…sulfer, brimestone, smiting follows.
<
p>Re: the Brownberger proposal. As dumb a piece of legistation as I’ve ever imagined. Duh that it didn’t have legs, matches the brain it also didn’t have. Imagine a tax system that excuses 50% of the population. Rediculous. Together, half of us can?
<
p>Real tax proposal, not some tincker toy, whiny, progressive rates to swoon for proposal: To any Legislator that actually means property tax relief, rather than just bloviating, refundable property tax credit against Mass income tax.
<
p>You pay excise tax on car and/or property tax on home, then you can take up to $500 of a credit against your state income tax. That so hard? Presto, property tax relief elegant and simple.
<
p>Your statement brings up a trend I’ve been wondering about. Conservatives (not so long ago) used to be all about making a big deal of all the hundreds of federal, state, and local taxes that people pay. Remember those conservative email forwards with the list of taxes that go on and on?
<
p>Yet today’s conservatives want to pretend that much of the population doesn’t pay taxes. They do so by, of course, ignoring the myriad sales, payroll, excise, and other taxes conservatives use to trumpet. Ideas like the Earned Income Tax Credit that people like Ronald Reagan trumpeted are now socialist boondoggles. Very strange.
If by strange you means strawman,then yes, you have made a strawman argument:
<
p>EITC. Expanded in 1986 by Reagan. Expanded in 1990 (Bush tax act), 1993 (Clinton) and 2001 (Bush). Rather bipartisan, wouldn’t you say? You might even say, it tilts right.
<
p>Consider the EITC. It has i) no associated government overhead and ii) encourages working because if you don’t work you don’t get it. So if you Believe (with a capital B) that the EITC is called a socialist boondoggle by “some”, it’s not called that by me and apparently is endorsed as a bipartisan tool against poverty.
<
p>Lastly, when I say imagine a tax system that excuses 50% of the population from tax, I’m referring to Will “half of us is poor” Brownbumkin’s proposal to exempt 50% from income tax, and if that wasn’t blazingly clear, then consider it clarified.
I don’t see how your comment contradicts my point. Conservatives used to be trumpeting the various taxes pay; now many choose to ignore the very taxes that affect low-income workers the most (like sales and payroll taxes).
<
p>Also, I see you used scare quotes around “some” to insinuate that I’m setting up a straw man and really conservatives don’t have a problem with the EITC. Funny, I remember this year’s GOP standard-bearer falsely calling Obama’s tax plan “socialist”, which included swipes at the EITC.
<
p>So, to answer your insinuation, this is no straw-man. I do appreciate that you support the EITC, though.
Were you to suggest that EITC kicks in at $60K I’d be opposed and would consider it socialism as opposed to welfare, much the same as the SCHIP expansion of 2009.
<
p>It’s all a matter of you do you think should pay no tax. I’d be surprised if you could find a single elected Federal official other than maybe Ron Paul, Republican or otherwise, who advocate repeal of the EITC.
by John McCain, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and the WSJ editorial page. To start.
John McCain:
<
p>
<
p>True that Phil Grammm opposed the expansion as welfare, while Newt Gingrich has resisted expansion and sought reform of the EITC error rate (20+% as calculated by IRS), but has never rejected it to my knowledge as an effective program at some level.
<
p>Wall street journal received much publicity with the “lucky duckies” editorial about those who don’t pay income tax, yet Harvard’s Robert Barro has frequently written supportively of the EITC in the WSJ and was an editorial board member.
<
p>The expansion of EITC in Republican administrations speaks for itself. By analogy, I could as easily point to the handful of Democrats who voted against the stimulus and intimate that the Stimulus is disliked by Democrats. It wouldn’t be honest debate, but YMMV.
The sources David cited above (and that’s only some of them) are not “a handful of Republicans.” They are leaders of the party or otherwise hugely influential within conservative circles.
<
p>I agree that the Republican expansion of EITC in the past was great. The fact so many Republicans reject it now is a sign that they’ve changed (and changed for the worse).
Personal attacks are verboten. You know that.
Personal attacks on legislators — who’s participation on BMG is especially valued — is also verboten.
<
p>Rep Brownsberger has heard worse, to be sure. But come on gary — don’t piss in our well.
And yet, elsewhere, Mr. Steele is called an idiot and maroon with impunity.
Gary? Surely you’re more sophisticated than that?
<
p>But wait, the first refuge of a conservative is denial, the second refuge is well the other guy’s doing it. The last refuge, of course, was your ad hominem attack.
<
p>YD
into this blog about Brownsberger.
<
p>example… If you are so hyper-sensitive that you can’t stomach tough language when a public official says something stupid, then perhaps you should avoid political discussions.
<
p>The remainder of your entire predictable response notwithstanding, tweaking names is just beyond the pale. HFS, ya hardly see that sort of behavior in children these days, given the prevalent diversity of names. Get with the program, Gary. So 70s.
Porky Palin’s ok, but not a play on the name of this particular Rep. It’s ok to call Republican Steele a maroon and idiot, but not intimate a Representative is a bumpkin. Or maybe it’s that my efforts aren’t sufficiently creative. Noted. I’ll strive for better. A bumpkin because the Goodwill Brownberger:
<
p>i) introduces a progressive tax excusing 50% of the population of the patriotic duty to tithe to the Commonwealth, that probably wouldn’t withstand Constitutional challenge;
<
p>ii) in a state that has twice rejected progressive rates by referendum;
<
p>iii) seeking a Legislative coalition that believes the Bill is neutral (wink, wink) won’t raise taxes, thereby hoping for a coalition of Legislators who’ll vote for the plan but those same Legislators won’t get any cash out of it unless they admit that maybe later they can raise the rate, but wait, we agreed in the first place taxes won’t go up, but taxes will, unless they won’t. But they will. Damn. He couldn’t see that roadblock coming before submitting the legislation?
<
p>iv) Finally, the legislation failed because there’s not enough “education and trust building”. I’m too stupid and don’t trust the government. Score! He got that one right.
<
p>On a bright note, he apparently runs a very decent 5K time, so socialist Legislation notwithstanding, his efforts aren’t apparently all wasted.
<
p>
It’s really very simple, and I can’t understand why folks find this confusing. If you post on BMG, you are entitled to be treated with civility, and not subjected to personal attacks, by other participants, per the Rules of the Road. Rep. Brownsberger posts on BMG. Hence, he should not be described as “Brownbumpkin” or subjected to other childish schoolyard taunts. I have not warned or banned gary for doing so, because the insult was so juvenile as not to warrant sanction — it makes gary look worse than Brownsberger, and I have a hard time imagining that Brownsberger was genuinely offended. But that’s the principle. Because Michael Steele and Sarah Palin have not, to my knowledge, decided to join our merrie band, they do not get the protection of the rules, so they are likely to be treated a bit more harshly (at least when they lie or say or do stupid things).
<
p>Any questions?
But to exempt Rep Brownsberger from the same treatment that other public figures get just because he uses BMG as one outlet for press release style proclamations seems a little silly. He’s not particularly interactive here, he hasn’t responded to a single comment on this thread and on his last thread he waited several days while his proposal was discussed and then posted one comment that acted as a blanket response to the entire discussion. Maybe Michael Steele should add BMG to his press release list so be can get the same treatment.
<
p>Your rule also seems to be facially neutral while having a disparate impact, since a blog devoted to liberal/progressive causes has attracted much more involvement from liberal/progressive public figures than from other public figures. So only those who share your ideological viewpoint are inclined to post here and, in turn, get the advantages of your exemption from using harsh personal language against public figures.
<
p>But again, this is your blog so you can do what you want. But I think it’s understandable if participants here don’t think Rep. Brownsberger should be afforded the status of a regular participant or think that this rule acts to protect only one ideological viewpoint.
It’s possible that you’re right about that — but not in the way you’re suggesting. If anything, we have been repeatedly accused (and I mean repeatedly) of being overly protective of our small but stalwart band of conservatives. They are, of course, the minority viewpoint on this site, which tends to subject them to harsher and more frequent criticism. It’s hard to know how a conservative public official would be treated, since to my recollection only one such official (Senator Bob Hedlund, in two different accounts) has joined us, and he has not engaged in any discussions at all.
<
p>Your larger point — that public figures shouldn’t be exempt from name-calling just because they post on BMG — is an interesting one. But we want public figures to post here, because that improves our ability to engage with them directly. They, like anyone else, are unlikely to engage directly with people who can insult and personally attack them with impunity. So we choose to afford the protection of our rules to those public officials who make the effort to join us here. I appreciate Rep. Brownsberger’s participation here, and I think you’re being a bit unfair to him. He is not exactly a daily participant, but in the four months or so since he joined he’s contributed four posts and, perhaps more importantly, 19 comments. That’s not bad for an elected official.
4 posts and 19 comments. I’m surprised that bumpkin even knows how to use a computer.
<
p>But seriously, I understand that you want access to public officials and that you are greatful for them to engage on this blog. But at some point exempting them from certain criticism just seems like special treatment to favored individuals because of their special status (I.e. ass-kissing). I guess it’s a difficult line drawing problem and you seem to have put some thought into it. It’s your blog, and you generally do a good job making those decisions.
I think Rep. Brownsberger’s mistake here was crafting a revenue neutral proposal. At this point, we need increased revenues – obviously we can not get money from the people that are hurting – they need to pay food, rent, and utilities. (Blood from a stone and all that…) And yes – I think the people at the top of the income ladder can afford to cover an increase without much-if any-change to their lifestyle.
<
p>With all the cuts to local aid, we will see increases in all sorts of sales taxes and real estate taxes – which are all regressive taxes.
Over Saturday morning coffee:
<
p>Progressive taxation is like Ebola; effective at killing its host and ending its own existence.
<
p>Downthread someone said FDR’s support for progressive tax was right. But historical context is important: i) the Federal government’s large revenue source in the 20s through 30s was excise tax, not income tax. FDR’s shift from 6.8% to 15% on top income tax rates was largely symbolic. Not to knock symbolism but the government’s take during the 30s was not Progressive based income taxation for the most part, it was a regressive user tax on the Forgotten Man.
<
p>WWII changed things at a time when sacrifice was needed and demanded. The rich taxed at something like 70%, but the middle class took a big shiv too. After WWII support for the progressive tax has been slowly and steadily fading, I submit, even through today. For anyone to claim otherwise – including Will “I see poor people” Brownberger – bear a heavy burden of proof. To whit: the death of his lame legislation-it died with a whimper.
<
p>Progressive rates brought WWII cash but also ended the progressive movement. It was just too much fairness, by which I mean too little. Moderation in all things, particularly taxes: flat, broad and shallow. All things progressive tax is not. Moderation means sustainability.
One of the biggest problems with our federal tax system is exemptions and deductions, which make the system hopelessly complex. The Republican canard that U.S. corporations pay a 35% tax rate is a canard because of exemptions and deductions.
<
p>If, Rep. Brownsberger, you are interested in taxation, you might contact John O. Fox. He’s professor at Mt. Holyoke and a tax attorney. It’s possible that John Scibak knows him. He knows the taxation system, and he’s done some deep thinking on it. He can be reached at johno.fox@comcast.net or you can check out his website at http://www.johnofox.org/index….
<
p>He doesn’t know me, but I’ve read a bit of his work. Taxes create all kinds of incentives and disincentives, and it might be worth checking out Fox’s work.
<
p>Old Yeller
<
p>
I applaud Rep. Brownsberger for crafting a pragmatic solution and airing it here on BMG. I was also surprised at the luke-warm reception it received, especially here at BMG, but whenever I spoke to people about it, I got the same responses he did.
<
p>I doubly appreciate his initial post here, and his followup post. This is what open government should be about. It’s a shame that some posters are poisoning the dialogue and BMG as a resource for everyone. I find that SOP for the GOP.
Rep. Brownsberger’s proposal and the responses to it are interesting. My own reactions are as follows:
<
p>1. Exempting half of the potential tax payers from paying any income tax at all would be corrosive. Those who have no ability to pay should be exempt, but this proposal goes far beyond this. It strikes me as fundamentally unfair and unsustainable.
<
p>2. Under a proportional tax system, those with twice the taxable income pay at the same rate, but pay twice as much tax, and so on. The Representative did not articulate why this is fundamentally unfair.
<
p>3. Many BMG bloggers have stated that government needs to raise taxes now to preserve programs that help the most vulnerable. I have sympathy for this position. Some go so far as to say a tax increase is a moral imperative.
<
p>4. I find it jarring to hear that it is a moral imperative for some to pay more, but that for political expedience (or other reasons) others who can afford to contribute something should have their taxes reduced at the same time.
<
p>5. Is support for a progressive tax system intended to raise more revenue to protect the most vulnerable, to reduce the number of people who are obligated to carry burden of supporting government services, or something else entirely?
Here’s the Brownsberger quote that puzzles me:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t think his proposal was to remove 1.7 million taxpayers from the roles, but I can’t think of an alternative way of reading his post.
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
And reliance on capitol gains tax is like playing bingo or some other form of gambling – with both the infrastructure and core services.
<
p>The current taxation here is not a “system” but a bogus, nonfunctional mish-mash.
<
p>It shows a craven inability to face any criticism, and a total lack of long range planning.