I wish someone would explain this:
Senate President Therese Murray described the sales tax increase as the least punitive of tax options needed to restore services for the most vulnerable.
“I think this is probably the more fair way to go if we have to raise revenue and, unfortunately, we have to raise revenue,” she told reporters after the vote.
“More fair” than what? Than increasing the income tax, which the Senate rejected? Than freezing a cut in the corporate excise, which the Senate also rejected? How is hiking the sales tax “more fair” than those options?
We all know that the sales tax is regressive — it takes a bigger share of poor people’s incomes than of rich people’s. Or, more precisely,
those at the 80th percentile of income and above contribute less than half as much to the sales tax, as a percentage of their income, than the lowest income earners in the state. Similarly, those earning between $34,000 and $58,000 contribute twice as much to the sales tax, again as a percentage of their income, as do income earners in the top 5 percent.
In contrast, because of things like the personal exemption and the Earned Income Tax Credit,
lower income people pay a smaller share of their income in income taxes than higher income people do.
The income tax hike proposed by Senators Chang-Diaz, Eldridge, et al. would have raised upwards of a billion dollars a year, and would have hit the wealthy harder than the poor. The sales tax, in contrast, will raise about half that amount, and will hit the poor harder than the wealthy.
In other words: the “more fair” solution adopted by the Senate (and the House, for that matter) will require more cuts in services, and will create a heavier tax burden on the poor, than the Chang-Diaz/Eldridge approach.
Hurray?
It is well documented that those with college degrees make a disproportionate amount of anual income viz a vis those with high school diplomas, GED’s, or high school dropouts. I suggest that we ascertain who in fact has a college education in MA, those aforementioned that have a domecile in MA and double their taxes. Now that is fair.
While that’s certainly a correlation, it’s not a rule. Taxing based on income ensures that those with more income are more taxed. Come on, MCRD, even you can do better than that.
An across the board sales tac COUPLED with massive cuts in spending is what is needed.
<
p>I’ll beat this drum again. I was a state employee for 25 years. The fraud, waste, and abuse is beyond comprehension.
I could document hundreds of millions in waste—-I have before an no one listens. I have talked to my rep—-he knows it—-he is also afraid of the UNIONS. So we sit here and moan and nothing gets done because MA has a one party government. And we have flogged that dead hose ad nauseum as well—-so I guess we learn to live with it until there is a cataclymic economic collapse and the entire matter is removed from local control and goes to the centralized federal government to wit: California.
It’s tongue in cheek…
<
p>… in an entirely irrelevant kind of way.
<
p>Let’s have it. Let’s see the documentation. I’ll give you a head start: police details. But please, let’s have it. Details, facts, evidence, that sort of thing.
<
p>I suspect that “no one listens” because you don’t have the evidence, the details, the explanations. You’ve just got cranky gripes.
How about YOU document all the “must have” untouchable programs in the budget, then balance the budget by picking programs and assigning $2 billion in reductions to those line items, in amounts sufficient to balance tax receipts with spending.
<
p>You can even include the increase from the sales tax in the calculation.
<
p>You got a weak start with police detail savings … how much is that $2 million? $10?
<
p>Get going …
Stomv’s simply asking for MCRD to document what he says he’s already documented. Pretty simple request. Yours is a different kettle of fish.
and the are off wailing about alleged global warming, Guantanamo, or all three. Because I am in my mid sixties makes be an addled, “cranky” old man who has nothing to do but bitch, yet I am the one with the military service for 28 years, state employment for 25 years, an RN and fifteen years working in just about every facet of medicine and two degrees. The 19 to 25 YOA crowd can’t quite grasp that no one is as smart as they are and no one posses’s the keen insight and the facile correction to every problem that confronts us. So————I’m not going to waste my time as I have in the past. Perhaps you would be far wiser to read what folks have to say and not dismiss it out of hand because they do not share your political philosophy. I have always held that you can learn something from everyone, no matter their station in life. Suffice it to say that the our present government runs at appox 50-60% efficiency. The waste of the taxpayers dollars is beyond comrehension——but we have legislators and a government that know that they are virtually untouchable for nonfeasance and often malfeasance so they don’t give a crap and they don’t want to be the bad guy.
<
p>But I will add this to which I a have alluded to only once.
Fourteen years ago I wrote to DPH after I had been employed at one of the slammers in MA. In one building, over the course of one month, we would dispose of approx ten thousand dollars worth of inmate meds that had been DC’d or the inmate was released, died, transferred or whatever the case. The meds were in blister paks. Perfectly good—-yet they were destroyed and likely are still being destroyed. ONE building at ten grand a month! Now multiply that times every slammer in the state. My suggestion was that the state recycle the meds, provide them to the indigent, give them to medicaid—-whatever—anything but destroying them. DPH said they couldn’t allow that because of the drug manufacturer lobby. This is just slice in one of my past professions that I have made noise about—-all for naught, because everyone in this state is afraid of rocking the boat or they have their hand out. No one cares that this is all paid for WE—the taxpayer.
You’re “not going to waste [your] time” backing up your claims, but you’ve got no problem rambling on about young people and Guantanamo and goodness knows what all.
<
p>I supplied flagmen, you’ve come up with blister packs, which I do recall you posting about elsewhere.
<
p>
<
p>Shall we call that a cool hundred million, or do you not have time to back up your nonsense with facts because you’re too busy yelling Get off my lawn! ?
…if you actually document this, when Howell, Healey, and others couldn’t, you pretty much get a free ride to the Corner Office.
Unless you work on the inside—you have no idea how the scams work. You think that the heads of the secretariats have any idea what is going on? You think the governor knows the nut and bolts on how to “make the system work for you”—-“how to manipulate the system.” The governor knows it happens, he doesn’t know how it’s done. No witness no crime.
On top of being incoherent logically, it’s also grammatically incorrect. El Camino College, holla!
Well —
<
p>1. American suffers from over-consumption. Reducing the amount of overconsumption probably would be a good thing in the long run for the economy. We don’t exactly suffer from too much income right now, just an imbalance in it.
<
p>2. Though our economy depends on consumption, consumption does not have the intrinsic value to families that income does.
<
p>3. Plus, families have a positive degree of flexibility on consumption that they do not have on income. In other words, raising the sales tax punishes people for continuing bad habits. I don’t want to cut my income, but I do want to cut my spending — the sales tax hike helps that. Clearly, we don’t have a choice on some spending; but we do have a great choice on much of the spending we do. It is easier to minimize damage from the sales tax hike than a hike in the income tax.
<
p>I think that’s what is meant by “more fair”. I don’t think this is the best solution — freezing the corporate tax rate and increasing the gas tax were — but I can see the argument from fairness.
I guess my sanguine response on this is partially rooted in the experience of living in a place for 6 years that had 15.2% sales tax. 6.25% doesn’t seem nearly so bad.
nt
Quebec, Canada.
<
p>Buy something for $100
Federal sales tax = 7.5%
Provincial tax on the post-tax price = 7.5%
Total price: $115.56
Paid for by job-destroying 15.56% VAT. Not so free.
Canada has, at least in recent years, been recognized as the best country to live in. It has jobs, affordable post-HS education and a quality health care system far superior to our own. Notice how Toyota, et al, are starting to build their newer plants and Canada instead of the US… they don’t have to pay for health care there.
<
p>Job destroying? Obviously not.
that companies who are so willing to get to American consumers but can’t afford to locate in the US are picking Canada for its proximity to the US? Second, I know a number of Canadians and they jumped at the chance to move here to the US which makes me wonder why if Canada is so wonderful.
… this problem too many times now. It deserves it’s own name. I’ll call it the Fallacy From Nationalism: people in other countries can’t possibly be as happy as here (wherever that is).
If they can’t afford to locate in the US, I doubt they can afford to locate in Canada either. There are plenty of cheap states to build in inside the United States of America — probably cheaper than Canada. What Canada offers is government health care, so private companies can get substantial savings in that department, as well as probably better educated workers than you’d get in certain ‘cheaper’ US states.
<
p>Just because some Canadians moved into the US, doesn’t make the US economically superior or wealthier for the median-esque citizen. There are plenty of reasons to come to a different country – not all of them having to do with lack of opportunity. For one thing, we are a much larger country — there’s just a bigger chance someone would end up here, even if practically by accident. I know plenty of Americans who have moved over to Canada and love it there, too. There’s a reason why we call these things “anecdotes.”
I’ve lived in NY state (7%) and Chicago (8+%, state+city), so 6.25% doesn’t seem that high to me. Still, the question is whether this was the best, least harmful, most progressive (in the technical sense) option. It wasn’t.
<
p>I also wonder which Senators might have bellyached that the gas tax increase would hurt low-income folks — with some justification, I grant — but who decided instead to raise their sales taxes. Huh.
<
p>So I’d propose that we legislate a sunset into this. Have it revert to 5% in a few years, and in the meantime get to the ConCon and do real progressivity in the income tax code. It’s not impossible, it’s not rocket science, it’s not unusual in the least. Let’s stop doing the stupid things, and do the smart things. I can’t imagine it’s that much harder.
NY, NJ, CA, MI, IL … these states have some of the highest combined marginal state tax rates (sales, income, investment, business taxes, etc., but not including property taxes.)
<
p>Think there’s some correlation between high tax rates and economies in the bottom 10 of state economic performance, especially job creation?
<
p>I do.
Fortunately, Mass has the constitution protection against the progressive income tax rate and a history of upholding any change.
<
p>California, after the defeat of the budget initiatives yesterday and with all its tax progressive goodness and progressive power to the Unions, where 1% of the people pay 1/2 the tax, appears to be irrevocably heading to bankruptcy. There but (if we’re lucky) by the grace of our Constitution go us. We may just be a smaller, eastern-er, and later version of California if the progressive tax ideals gain momentum here.
California is heading into bankruptcy b/c of progressive taxes? Huh?
<
p>No, they’re headed that way b/c they apparently can’t raise taxes. The GOP — and the voters — are telling them so. Something-for-nothing rules CA. Always has, apparently.
But I believe one of their biggest problems is that while they have a highly progressive income tax rate structure, income taxes are a much higher a percentage of overall state revenues than in most other states. As a result they have huge surpluses when times are good and huge deficits when times aren’t, like now. I’m not sure who is to “blame” for this, but I think one of the initiatives (that lost) was designed to force money into their rainy day fund when times are good. They seem to govern through ballot initiative, presumably a result of a completely dysfunctional legislative process.
<
p>I think it’s worthy to note that implementing a progressive income tax rate structure may not be the panacea many seem to think it is.
Whether you use Census numbers of taxfoundation, California’s tax burden per capita or tax burden per dollar of personal income is in the top 10 of all the States.
<
p>Hard to make the argument that they haven’t raised taxes fast enough.
Yglesias:
A progressive tax has a rate that increases as the amount subject to taxation increases. The federal income tax is progressive as the higher the taxable amount (the income), the higher the rate.
<
p>A regressive tax has a rate that decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
<
p>In terms of sales tax, if Person A purchases $100 of goods and Person B purchases $150 of goods, the tax rate is the same. This is not regressive.
<
p>The poster and many commenters argue a sales tax is regressive because persons with a lower income pay a higher percentage of their income in sales tax than higher income persons. But this does not conform to the definition of a regressive tax because income is not the “taxable amount” — the purchase price is.
<
p>Clearly persons with a lower income spend a higher percentage of their income on almost anything when compared to persons with a higher income. A notable exception is college tuition where persons with lower incomes are given a lower purchasing price via grants, scholarships, and other aid which may result in something closer to the percentage of income going towards this expense.
<
p>I think what this comes down to is the belief that people with a higher income should pay more of the services offered by the government. It is interesting that this sentiment is coupled with a mention of fairness, but the discussion never examines the fairness of paying for government services that are used by others. My guess is that there would be an inverse relation between the amount of services consumed and the amount paid for, but I’m not certain.
<
p>It is worth examining. Consider Mr. and Mrs. Winakor’s testimony on the health connector website. Mrs. Winakor says of the connector and its services:
<
p>”Health Connector is making our retirement much smoother, much easier, and allowing us to do other things that we just may have had to think twice about.”
<
p>So we have one of the costliest programs in MA allowing a couple to seemingly have an enjoyable early retirement (I assume they went from COBRA because they aren’t yet eligible for Medicare). I think folks like the Winakor’s who are making less due to their retirement should be picking up the tab via increases sales tax for the government services they are enjoying. That seems fair.
<
p>Source: http://tiny.cc/3A2lA
<
p>
I think that it is a difference of opinion whether you compare the tax paid to the income, or the purchase price of the item bought.
<
p>If we charged everyone in this country a flat tax of $10,000 — based on them living here — under your method, since we aren’t charging based on income this would not be a regressive tax either, since everyone paid the same “rate per” — in this case, rate per person.
<
p>I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I think that when deciding whether a tax is regressive or not, you need to always compare to income.
<
p>One thing that is really lost in such discussion about fairness is how spending patterns tend to change as people acquire more wealth. People shift from buying goods to buying services. If you’re making $300k per year, I’m better there are greater odds that you’re paying for landscaping services, travel (vacation house rentals), private schooling, more expensive personal services such as hair, nails, massage, etc.
<
p>Those things have no sales tax. That means our current tax laws give a large tax break — technically to everyone — but used mostly by the wealthier people.
Heck I was in Chicago recently. Apparently Illinois has various sales tax rates by county. Chicago, Cook County I beleive, was 10.25%. At any rate I’m sure the 6.25% is only “temporary” like the income tax increase.
I’ve talked with some prog legislators over this, and it’s clear that a) we didn’t have the votes for what even they deemed ‘better options’ like a gas or income tax, so b) all we had left was the sales tax, which they c) ended up supporting not only because of b, but because of the protections we offer the most vulnerable in Massachusetts, who won’t have to pay sales taxes on food and clothing. It’s still not perfect and still not my preference, but you can see they’ve thought it out well… and it’s not a huge hike.
<
p>In the future, I don’t think it’s going to be possible to undo this, unless we can somehow convince state legislators and future governors to do so whilst raising other taxes even that much higher. Could we do that without completely changing the way we collect taxes in Massachusetts – moving to a progressive system? I don’t think so. Sunsetting this will only have the same disastrous consequences of essentially sunsetting the corporate tax rate.
I almost get the sense that a lot of less progressive people were in favor of raising the sales tax because it taxed poor people — people who they feel aren’t paying their fair share.
“…consumption does not have the intrinsic value to families that income does.”
<
p>Monetary income is almost the definition of instrumental value, not intrinsic value, which is to say that it has value because of what it can do for you, not because of what it is, in and of itself.
Pretty big caveat, that.
and I suspect that it’s shifting away from consumption, albeit slowly.
<
p>As recently as 100 years ago our economy had lots of service. Mass production hadn’t rolled out yet, and things were certainly not throwaway. With long lasting goods, service was important. The repair/refurb industry was massive, and it included all kinds of in-home side work like mending clothes.
<
p>As manufactured goods have become cheaper, we repair less and replace more.
<
p>After a while though, it turns out we just have a huge amount of stuff and our appetite for more goes down. What do we do with the extra money? I think we start to buy services.
<
p> * College education. That’s a service.
* Restaurants, Starbucks, etc. Service.
* Live entertainment — concerts, opera, whatever. Service.
* Recoded entertainment like movie theaters, cable TV, etc. Even iTunes downloads. Service.
* Cleaning, landscaping, babysitting, daycare. Service.
* Roofers, plumbers, and other home contractors. Service.
* Hospitality: hotels, theme parks, etc. etc. is all service.
<
p>
<
p>I concede that all of these are playing a bit fast and loose with service and consumption in legal, economic, and common terms. The sales tax generally doesn’t apply to services, but does apply to restaurants, etc.
<
p>I wonder: is there a strong ecological argument to higher sales tax and low/no service tax, especially if classes of necessities are tax-free?
It seems much harder for a repair worker to add a tax to his or her services, as well as ripe for abuse (so much of this stuff is under the table, after all). Plus, a lot of those things you listed already are taxed. Restaurants, Starbucks, etc. College employees pay income taxes. Concert tickets are definitely taxed. Cleaners and landscapers, roofer and plumbers all must buy things, which are taxed. Hotels, theme parks, etc. already taxed, as are their employees.
<
p>These taxes are sometimes collected in different ways — ie not directly — but a “service tax” seems to have varying degrees of bad idea and unenforceable written all over it. I realize you’re not exactly pushing for it to be a large tax and even leaving room for there to be no service tax, but I say we even just put the idea of a service tax to bed for now, at least until after we pass a progressive income tax and reassess the situation.
and I suspect that it’s shifting away from consumption, albeit slowly.
<
p>As recently as 100 years ago our economy had lots of service. Mass production hadn’t rolled out yet, and things were certainly not throwaway. With long lasting goods, service was important. The repair/refurb industry was massive, and it included all kinds of in-home side work like mending clothes.
<
p>As manufactured goods have become cheaper, we repair less and replace more.
<
p>After a while though, it turns out we just have a huge amount of stuff and our appetite for more goes down. What do we do with the extra money? I think we start to buy services.
<
p> * College education. That’s a service.
* Restaurants, Starbucks, etc. Service.
* Live entertainment — concerts, opera, whatever. Service.
* Recoded entertainment like movie theaters, cable TV, etc. Even iTunes downloads. Service.
* Cleaning, landscaping, babysitting, daycare. Service.
* Roofers, plumbers, and other home contractors. Service.
* Hospitality: hotels, theme parks, etc. etc. is all service.
<
p>
<
p>I concede that all of these are playing a bit fast and loose with service and consumption in legal, economic, and common terms. The sales tax generally doesn’t apply to services, but does apply to restaurants, etc.
<
p>I wonder: is there a strong ecological argument to higher sales tax and low/no service tax, especially if classes of necessities are tax-free?
A sales tax tends to limit consumption and boost savings, which is good, but enacting it at the State level creates other problems, especially for border businesses. A national sales tax would be better for getting a better balance between consumption and savings, as it would probably affect the Chinese sellers more than the US sellers.
<
p>The Senate apparently thinks the sales tax is “more fair” because of the exemptions, which are know fewer under their bill. However, the income tax has exemptions and credits that more widely cover the expenses of the lesser income people.
<
p>I think that’s a more rational version of ‘more fair’. I don’t think, however, that Murray goes that far… She hasn’t demonstrated the level of intellect that would grasp your version of ‘more fair’.
<
p>No, I think the most simplistic version of ‘more fair’ is likely the one Murray has in mind: taxes are being raised across the board; everyone has to pay them; therefore it’s the most fair. Translation: We legislators don’t have to do any hard work so it’s the fairest on us…
<
p>…sigh…
<
p>
I think Murray has the most effective combination of intellect and street smarts of anyone on Beacon Hill right now — Coakley perhaps excepted.
but I don’t, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Keep in mind, I’ve been watching Murray longer than most because she’s from my neck of the woods. I know she lost a lot of people with “ka-ching”, but it’s myopic to place too much emphasis on that.
<
p>DeLeo doesn’t strike me as an intellect. Deval gets outmaneuvered by the Legislature so regularly that it’s getting embarrassing.
to find my favorite intellect. It would have to be someone who clearly has a way of looking at the world and really knows the issues. Maybe Sonia? Sen. Tucker’s discussion on the philosophy of tax policy always struck me as very intellectual, but I don’t know enough about her other positions to know if I’d want to place that mantle on her. I’m sure there’s a bunch of intellectuals out there, but I don’t think intellect has been Murray’s (or DeLeo’s) guiding principal: it’s power.
<
p>I’m glad she’s allowing the Senate to pass the liquor sales tax and a municipal option meal tax, but she’s going to have to show a lot more for me to start giving her the benefit of the doubt again. Ka-ching is not the only reason why I dislike the direction she’s taken our state.
<
p>I think there is qualitative difference in getting ‘outmaneuvered’ by the legislature and the legislature pointedly refusing to treat the governor with anything approaching respect. Deval can talk at a pile of rocks and not get anywhere… has he been ‘outmaneuvered’ by the pile of rocks?
<
p>There’s also a pointed lack of maneuvering whatsoever on the part of the legislature, being entirely beholden to inertia as they are. To ‘outmaneuver’ someone you have to actually be willing to maneuver, that is to say, move from point a to point b with more than the absolute least possible effort.
<
p>
Although some taxes are clearly designed to influence behavior — e.g., cigarette taxes, and to some extent gas taxes — this doesn’t seem to be one of them, or at least I don’t think that’s the intent. It’s not the 6.25%, but the pre- or post-tax total price that determines most purchasing decisions, and there are many expenditures that aren’t really discretionary anyway — this is what makes it less fair, because the lower your income, the higher percentage of your expenditures are non-discretionary (Remember “Fur Coats Don’t Trickle Down”?). Having to spend most of your income on rent, food, and health care is not a “bad habit” to be discouraged by the state.
<
p>On the other hand, the absence of a sales tax — on state sales-tax holidays — probably affects mostly discretionary spending, and encourages over-consumption, if you will. Like the lottery, it places the highest burden on people with the worst math skills. Come to think of it, either on the basis of discouraging consumption (if you buy that) or raising revenue, it’s ridiculous and counterproductive to raise the sales tax, then have a tax holiday or two every year.
<
p>If it could be done in a “zero-sum” fashion or better (from a revenue standpoint), I would gladly trade in all the property, gas, sales taxes — even corporate taxes, and except for the cigarette tax — in favor of a properly-administered, progressive income tax.
<
p>Oh, and a 300% tax on Viagra, Cialis, and K-Y Jelly ads broadcast in the state.
“Having to spend most of your income on rent, food, and health care is not a “bad habit” to be discouraged by the state.”
<
p>I don’t pay sales tax on those things.
<
p>What percentage of our discretionary income is subject to sales tax? A lot, I bet. And I agree that the sales tax isn’t meant to push people away from consumerism. But I mainly reacted to this attempt to redefine “fair” to mean “income tax hikes for everyone” — it’s a great campaign tactic, but it’s a bit early for that I think.
and if we have one, a bigger one. Non-profits and PSAs exempt, of course.
<
p>Heck, how about this one: x% per foot the top of the billboard is above the ground? x == 1, x == 0.1, whatever. The taller the top of the billboard, the higher the tax. And, double if illuminated in any way.
<
p>
<
p>Cruising through Vermont is a beautiful thing, including the no billboards part.
You get points from me (not that you were looking for any) for being consistent on the sales and meals tax – unlike two of our humble editors.
but what happened to reform before revenue? What reform has happened so far?
Curious that it’s the Senate President who initiated the whole “reform before revenue” thing.
Honest question open for everyone, including the Senate President, should she be reading.
via RMG Murray: “I didn’t vote for that tax.”
The tax is regressive, we know that. Also, it does not solve the state’s transportation financing crisis. Yeah, it bails out the T, for now. But there is no long term transportation finance strategy associated with this tax increase. Given that, the state still will not be able to access the federal funding for transportation projects (fed 80% to 20% state funding) without solving the finance crisis.
In this whole mess I must comment that on Senator Baddour’s underwhelming vision and leadership through his resistance to addressing the transportation finance mess and need for new revenues. Had he not so opposed increasing the gas tax increase, maybe he would have less to worry about the impact on local busiensses in Methuen because of the sales tax increase. Money doesn’t grow on trees. I haven’t heard him rail against the huge increase in gas cost over the last few weeks, where is the rage!
they respond; they don’t solve. They don’t lead; they don’t even manage well; they run for re-election.
<
p>It would help if the office of governor actually had some power or if there were a credible GOP opposition. What we’ve really got is a de facto, one party parliament with a figurehead executive in the corner office. It doesn’t matter much who our executive is, he’s less a prime minister than a president.
http://www.boston.com/news/glo…
<
p>You’re absolutely correct though that DLP is completely irrelevant notwithstanding that. And the worst part is, he is the one with visibility and accountability. He might lose his reelection bid; incument legislators will be returned at least 98% of the time. At this point, all I can hope is that he goes down in a blaze and brings 50 legislators with him.
<
p>I had some hopes that he would forge a progressive-Republican alliance on some issue, but that has not materialized (I don’t think he’s even tried). First, apparently he has no sway, even with “Progressive Caucus” types, compared to the carrots and sticks from leadership. Second, Beacon Hill Rs would rather carry the water for whoever runs against Patrick in 2010 than productively participate in, you know, the legislative process. [Did you see they let the leadership enact the local option and alcohol exemptions by voice vote? I wonder what earmarks they will get for that little favor.]
research. Patrick certainly lacks the political clout or, it seems, skill to get things done. We have no legal term limits like California. Still is the power only there in theory or practice? I’d like to see some empiricism.
<
p>To be fair to the Mass. GOP, I should say that they are caught between a far right national party and a state that is comparatively far to the left. What’s a Republican with ambitions beyond the state going to do? I think that’s why the political gene pool is so shallow. You have to be a doublethinker like Romney.
<
p>If we ever needed Progressive Republicans, this is the time. But I suspect we have several years of crashing and burning before the GOP has something worth offering.
Yes, they are laughably weak and disorganized. But think about how Rich Tiesi or Brad Jones operates. They have NO power to influence legislation. In fact, it’s kind of a joke that they even get “leadership” stipends. But between attacking the legislative leadership or the Governor, they mostly choose to go after the Governor. And they cut deals with the leadership to get their earmarks, etc., taken care of in exchange for going along with certain procedural moves — like the voice votes last night. This is ridiculous as a means of advancing their ranks. And it’s also thoroughly unproductive in terms of creating good legislation.
everyone pays the same percentage tax.
Consumption? Income? What kind of income? Net worth? Any exemptions? Any deductions?
<
p>Not a very helpful comment. Feel free to expand.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Quoting a Communist, no less…
when you think someone who earns poverty wages and has kids should pay the same percentage of tax as a multi-millionaire busy schmucking it up on the green.
It’s not the government’s job to tell somebody earning poverty wages that geez, now may not be the time to have kids. Nor is it the government’s job to transfer wealth in such an individualized way as your comment mandates. I’m all for a fair start, but trying to engineer equal outcomes never works out.
Um, actually, the federal goverment already recognizes that people with kids shouldn’t be taxed as high. I haven’t argued for anything different at the state level than already exists federally. Whoa.
I don’t see the government as trying to mandate equal outcomes. It is trying maintain equal opportunities — which I think most people favor. The fact that a $10,000 year of college costs the same to someone making $100k versus someone making $15k is very clearly not an equal opportunity, it would truly be an equal opportunity if the impact of the cost was the same to each party’s budget. I doubt anyone has the stomach for proportional pricing, so the next best thing is giving a break to the poor person — or, using your more pejorative term, redistribution of wealth.
<
p>Wealthier people use a wide variety of opportunities to get ahead in life, many of which are not available to the poor. Even the idea of an internship — an unpaid position which is awarded based on merit — is not an equal opportunity, because few people can accept such a position without having some accumulated wealth. And wealth can be accumulated in many ways, these days the primary way to pass it along is to “buy” a school system that only provides access to the wealthy.
… the flat model is because flat taxation does not equal flat pain or loss of utility.
<
p>The first $800 from someone who makes $16,000 might be proportional to the first $80,000 from someone who makes $1,600,000, but it’s a very unequal amount of pain.
The high cost of poverty…
<
p>
<
p>Let’s add a SALES TAX and pat ourselves on the back for ‘fairness’!!!
<
p>Yay us!
Fair, as in baseball, not foul. Not grossly obscene in her estimation, so therefore, not foul.
<
p>Fair, as in “How you feeling?” “eh, just fair”. The tax increase was just fair, neither excellent or poor. I’m fairly certain, there are idiots who wanted a very excellent tax increase.
<
p>Fair, as in a competitive exhibition of livestock. “Let’s visit the Beacon State Fair; the largest hog judging contest draws near.”
<
p>Maybe she meant fare and in to eat or dine. In which case, the Legislature is saying “yum, more taxes. Delightful fare.”
<
p>Or, fare as in the price of transportation. Bus fare, train fare. Maybe the Legislature just raised tolls or train tickets and the media got this sales tax increase thing all wrong.
<
p>Maybe it means attractive without blimishes, as in the fair maiden. “It was a fair increase, let’s do it again,” said the Speaker.
<
p>
Since the the exact definition of a ‘progressive tax’ does not apparently exist, it seems that forcing a discussion of tax policy to focus on the term merely complicates the issue at hand: how should the government distribute the tax burden among the people. John Rawls’ seminal work Justice as Fairness provides excellent insight as to what it means to be just, and I’d like to offer an idea of how we may tax people justly, and am curious to read your thoughts and criticisms.
<
p>As Rawls states, and as we, as a nation, hold to be a self-evident truth, equality is the first principle of justice. We assume our votes should be equal; that we should appear equally before our government. Yet, as Rawls goes on to explain, and as we all know from our own understandings of economics, equality in every facet is not necessarily just. But to depart from the principle of equality requires some compelling reason such that the whole will benefit more from a given iniquity than it would from fundamentalist adherence to a notion of equality as justice. With respect both to the distribution of services and the distribution of taxes, I submit that the plight of mentally or physically disabled people, sick people, and children is the compelling reason for departing from the principle of equality. This compelling reason is a moral obligation of all people to ensure that those who cannot subsist, are adequately helped by those more fortunate than they, so that they may subsist.
<
p>I believe applying this logic to taxation brings us directly to a policy prescription for a just, fair, equitable, or, if you will, progressive means of taxation. In a world where all was well, we would be taxed equally. For a given level of taxation, each citizen would pay an equal share of that total. Yet, we have a compelling reason to depart from that principle. Taxing all equally will cause those who cannot subsist to experience further hardship and those who can barely subsist to fail to be able to do so. And so, we must, as a whole, depart from the principle of equality, to adjust tax rates so that we do not tax those who cannot adequately subsist.
<
p>When I go to a supermarket to buy food, the cashier doesn’t care where my money comes from, only that I have it. This is true of all of my purchases, without exception, that I have ever made. And so I suggest that the determination of who can or cannot subsist is not a function of any given source of purchasing power, but rather a function of the aggregate: the money you made this year, the money you made last year, your capital gains, your winning lottery ticket, your inheritance, and so on. The problem with focusing on past year income as the sole basis of taxation is that, while it likely correlates to one’s ability to subsist, it does not determine it. Should someone who has ten billion dollars in the bank and no income be taxed less, in absolute dollars, than someone with no savings and a $60,000 annual income? Certainly not.
<
p>A just system of taxation would measure an individual’s purchasing power, as measured by their average net worth over the given time period (a year), and tax, in equal amounts, all whose wealth would exceed the amount necessary to survive. In this regard, we meet the principle of equality, as modified by the compulsion to help those who cannot help themselves, to arrive at a Just Tax.
The entire statement of the draft platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party on taxation is the following:
<
p>
<
p>Given the wild disagreement on what counts as “fair” on taxation evident in this single post, you can imagine how useful an entire platform written in this style would be…