The personal income tax in Massachusetts has been subject of debate for a few years now. Despite having a flat rate of 5.3%, adjustments such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and exemptions for our lowest-income taxpayers mean that it is one of our state’s most progressive taxes. Over the years, people have also pushed to make it even more progressive by implementing a graduated income tax in Massachusetts – taxing higher income earners at higher levels than low-income earners.
The report also shows how heavily the state relies on more regressive taxes such as property and sales taxes, and very little on corporate and other types of taxes. And while this information is not a surprise, it would be a welcome change to see a more balanced revenue structure. Corporations and individuals value the public structures we have in place in the state, but contribute in very different proportions for their creation and maintenance as shown in this recent report. While no one would argue that corporations play a keyrole in contributing to the state we cannot forget that the public structures that are in place make the state an attractive one for both businesses and families.
It is time to think about what we value in our communities and how we should pay for those structures. Reports like this one help us understand how the state gathers its resources and decide how we want to continue obtaining them. By gathering this type of information – from our state and across the nation – we can build a tax system that shares responsibility in a more proportionate way among each person and corporation in our state.
Really, When are we going to stop this terrible trend?
<
p>Just take a look at this study from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, stop gnashing your teeth and go to work for candidates who support progressive tax reform.
<
p>Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show
Even in a relatively high income state like Massachusetts, stratification of income and wealth has a hard impact on people in the Commonwealth. It means the recession is disproportionately impacting different classes, different races, different regions. Unemployment in Springfield, MA is increasing while private sector job growth in Metro West is on a strong clip. Cuts in public services are hitting people hard in this high cost state. We spend more on corrections, prisons, and public safety than on public higher education.
<
p>So figuring out a combination of taxes and fees on inherited wealth, very high incomes, and financial transactions does not sound too burdensome to me. Especially when our public structures, our literal investments in human beings, is being weakened by this recession.
<
p>The point is, taxation is not theft, I am sorry. A great deal of wealth in this country, if not all of it, gets implicit and explicit supports from our government. In Massachusetts such important sectors as health care and FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate), where many high income and wealthy households get their living, depend upon direct infusions of public money.
<
p>Cutting wages, increasing costs, privatizing services, and using money to buy the political system, I consider that theft.
is stop calling it a “progressive tax”. Glenn Beck and others have done a tremendous job turning “progressive” into a dirty word. Some people will shut down immediately when they hear it, even though they have no clue what it means. We need to start calling it a “graduated” tax. That is easier for the uninformed and Glenn Beck zombies to understand. This could have a tremendous impact on voter support for it, which would give candidates more courage to support it as well.
That would be a better description for a tax that discourages working hard and earning more.
<
p>The concept of penalizing people for hard work is ludicrous. Not only do you pay more taxes because you earned more money, but the added “graduation” of increasing the percentage you pay on your income is just simply regressive. Don’t forget, the original income tax was implemented as a way to pay for WWI and it was…temporary, and only to be imposed on “the rich”. Critics at the time warned that if we weren’t careful, the income tax would be permanent and we would be paying 30% of our income. Taxes should be used to cover the costs of operating our society, not as a means to punish hard work.
Define “hard work”. Are you saying that Scott the roofer, who travels from home to home replacing roofs in the hot sun at dangerous heights but earns 65,000/yr works less hard than say Jeff, business owner of a CPA firm, who probably hires temp workers at low wages around tax time so that he doesn’t have to work so hard but can still keep the dollars coming in.
<
p>Apparently, you would prefer the roofer to pay a greater percentage of his income in taxes so the CPA doesn’t have to. And your argument in favor is because the CPA works harder. You need to come up with something better than that.
<
p>Bluedogs are DINOs.
“Apparently, you would prefer the roofer to pay a greater percentage of his income in taxes so the CPA doesn’t have to…”
<
p>To have the roofer or the CPA pay a greater percentage on his income is just plain wrong. They should pay the same percentage…higher earnings = higher taxes paid.
<
p>MA does have the optional higher tax rate for any person who feels they should be paying more. Maybe people should put THEIR money where their mouth is instead of stealing others…
… it depends on the assumption that a dollar of fiscal ‘pain’ is equal for any two people. That is absurd on it’s face. The $1,000 of ‘pain’ from someone making $20,000 is not equivalent to $5,000 of ‘pain’ from someone making $100,000. This is the essence of why flat taxes are inherently regressive. The former is an example of a hardship that might make you homeless. The latter is hardly a hardship by comparison.
Does anyone believe that corporate executives work any harder than blue collar workers? Those of us who work in white collar jobs can provide tons of stories of executives who didn’t earn their pay.
<
p>Even if higher income is taxed at a higher rate, how does that discourage hard work? You still get more money to take home at the end of the day if you get a raise. The fact that those in the top income brackets get increasingly rich despite their slightly higher Federal income tax rate is a clear indication that the current progressive system does not even remotely discourage hard work.
<
p>I am really tired of this entirely bogus argument.
otherwise, you could be rich
Corporate executives who do so horribly they need a bailout, then get bonuses because we need to keep the “talent”.
<
p>Professional athletes who make millions for “work” that requires almost no formal education and do what they do for entertainment purposes only.
<
p>Teachers, who are encouraged or in some cases required to have a master’s degree AND have a lot more to do with providing for our society than either of the above, but only making five figures per annum.
<
p>It would be wonderful if compensation were directly related to skills, education level, and worth to society, but it clearly is not the case.
There is no question that high-paid individuals are paid more because someone thinks it is worth, but we all know that has only a very loose correspondence with actual value or how hard someone works.
<
p>My main point is that there is absolutely no evidence that progressive taxes in any way discourage hard work or achievement.
Given 2 people of equal value, the one that works more/harder is likely to make more money.
<
p>Don’t we, now.
<
p>And if you’d like to establish some evidence about people working less under higher taxes, just give yourself a simple questionnaire:
<
p>How many hours per year would you work at $x per hour (insert whatever you make here) if your income tax was:
<
p>0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
<
p>And don’t you dare say the answer is 2000 in every case. At least don’t answer that and claim to be sane.
If $x is $10,000 hr then I’m working every freaking hour possible, even at a 75% tax rate. Why? $2,500 hr is a whole lot of money, and if I suffered through 100 hour work weeks at that kind of cash, I could work for a few years and pay off my parents’ home, medical bills, and debts, same for my brother’s family, my brother-in-law’s family, pay off my own home, and even give a huge amount of money to charity. It’d be worth it, even if I’m taxed at 75%… because the remaining 25% is so large.
<
p>If $x is $10 /hr, then I’m not. $2.50 an hour ain’t worth much in this world.
<
p>
<
p>The interest in working more hours depends vastly on what $x actually is, not just the marginal tax rate.
Which is another way of saying that the relevant “Laffer Curve” question is where we are on the scale.
<
p>I find knee-jerk opposition to a graduated income tax–on this “discourage work” ground– to be hyper-simplistic.
<
p>On the other hand, the repeated discussions here looking to tax this, tax that, tax anything, and then tax it again, justified, in essence, by “the rich suck” (see Christoper’s comment right above) are about equally dumb.
The unfortunate thing is that their persistent demand and receipt of tax cuts always trickles down to tax increases for working class people, or reduced funding for schools and essential services. If that didn’t happen, we wouldn’t even care. It is literally ruining people’s lives. There is just no excuse for it, especially in America.
<
p>I know this sounds like an attack on the rich. That is because we are powerless and what little power we have comes from our voice. If we could hand out tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations, we wouldn’t have to scream so loud. We wouldn’t have to scream at all.
Pay is determined by perceived value, not hard work.
Perceived value is determined by current cultural attitudes.
A field picker can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for their entire life and never earn the equivalent of some brokers annual bonus. Have you heard the expression, “Don’t work hard, work smart.” The link between hard work, productivity, value to community and pay is pretty weak.
<
p>But it is your assertion that their is a correlation between less take home pay and less work that is the most faulty. For every example you can produce, there are 2 showing the opposite. It would be surprising to find as many millionaires working second jobs as minimum wage workers. At a certain point the more they take home, the less they work.
Try working half as hard and half as much next year, and see where that gets ya.
<
p>Oh wait, are you in a union?
…what is “perceived value”? Classroom teachers don’t do a whole lot of “work” in the physical/manual labor sense, but to me it is obvious they should be paid a heck of a lot more than most of them are due to their value to society. In other words, why isn’t the “perceived value” of teachers through the roof, and why aren’t they paid to match?
was $67,577
<
p>This is equivalent to an annualized salary of approximately $90k (adjusting for the shorter number of days worked). Can we put the old canard that teacher’s are underpaid to rest yet?
…is pretty close to the low end of what teachers should be paid IMO. There are plenty making quite a bit less. I think we should have a longer year actually, but if they did work year round I would be advocating six figures. Doctor/lawyer territory sounds about right in terms of worth to society.
I understand “progressive tax”. As I work hard, advance in my career and earn money the government takes a progressively larger part of it away. Pretty clear to me.
That crowd already made “liberal” a dirty word and we caved and started saying “progressive”. We shoud stand up and point out that the root of “progressive” is “progress” then ask, “What part of making progress in our society do y’all not like?”
are both obsolete and would be bad for the planet. We need to abandon the idea that growth and progress are desirable and change the goal to surviving and conserving the rest of the fossil fuel and using it as slowly as possible. Progressive is too closely tied in with techno-progressive and technology and complexity and big computers and everything programmed and controlled.
<
p>I agree with liveandletlive that “graduated” is better, because it fits in with how we are going to have to manage the contraction of the economy.
deserves it’s own diary
I want to grow smartly, not manage contraction. We need to ween off of fossil fuel entirely and move toward renewables.
Do not let the greedicans redefine the words we use. That was Dukakis’s huge failure – he let Bush make ‘liberal’ a bad word without any attempt to rescue it. It is still an insult in the minds of many. If ‘progressive’ suffers the same fate, we might as well start using marshmallow.
My husband was out in California in 1988 working for Dukakis and he called me from a rally in the San Fernando vally to report that Dukakis had described him self as a liberal. Three times. So there.
Did he say why being a liberal was not a bad thing? He could have made an issue out of the disparagement of the word, but if he did, it escaped my notice.
as well. It was during the last 6 days of the campaign 🙂
IIRC, Bush used the word as a pejorative in their first debate and kept it up. The time to take the word back was in that debate or soon after. By November, the opportunity was long gone.
because of Glenn Beck.
<
p>Progressive is a fine word. I’m not running from it. Nor from liberal. Also a fine word.
<
p>How about this for a pitch:
“Progressive Income Tax: Nutball Glenn Beck’s against it! Probably a good idea, huh?”
…even outsourcing legal research to India; there it is sitting in email inboxes in the morning. Oh yes, lets reward GREED.
You would need a Constitutional amendment to do that. For THAT to happen, the Legislature would have to do more than open and immediately adjourn a Constitutional Convention like they did earlier this month. And guess what? A progressive tax rate was ON that calendar the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature blew off.
Mr. Porcupine is right that the State Constitution prohibits a graduated income tax like the one the federal tax system uses. And of course amending the constitution is no small matter.
<
p>But all is not lost. It’s possible to make the state income tax more “graduated,” so as to reduce the enormous and growing gap between rich and poor, without needing to amend the State Constitution. Mass Budget & Policy Center has a quick rundown here.
Good to know you guys are on the case.
A sidebar, maybe, but there was no proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for a progressive income tax this session. Here’s the Calendar.
Once again we immediately jump to an argument about whether or not we should have a
progressivegraduated income tax. Once again use “income” synonymously with “wealth”.<
p>Folks, they are different.
<
p>Any income tax can and will be avoided by the wealthiest 5% of us. They did so in the past (when the maximum tax brackets were far higher than today) and they will do so in the future. The principal impact of a graduated income tax is a heightened barrier between wage-earners and the truly wealthy. Those who already have their wealth will simply arrange their finances so that they show whatever personal income they choose to show.
<
p>One way or another, we should be taxing wealth. I’ve been harping about the estate tax, because its a relatively painless way to accomplish the feat. There may be other approaches.
<
p>But please — let’s differentiate between income and wealth. The executive who’s showing a six-figure income is an attractive target, I grant you — but she is not the problem in today’s economy, especially if she is spending that income on houses, cars, boats, toys, and so on.
<
p>It is Joe Moneybags, who inherited $2.5 B from his great-great-granddaddy and who chooses to play with startup companies as his entertainment, who we should be looking at.
<
p>I strongly encourage each of us to look at the wealth distribution statistics for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts — like this — and actually think about what they mean (turn to the appendices at the back).
<
p>The top 1.56% of our households hold thirty five percent of the wealth in Massachusetts. That 1.56% is who we should be targeting, and even a 100% marginal income tax rate will not touch them.
of ways to hide wealth also. Trusts?
<
p>Yet at some point our elected officials must realize that they have to go where the money is to support services and infrastructure.
<
p>They seem to gasp this theory when fundraising, but forget it shortly after the election. The tax dollars collected from the poor and middle class would otherwise be effectively spent on stimulating the economy – creating more tax revenue.
the aforementioned wealthy mentioned in Tom’s post move to Florida for 6 months in the winter and you get bupkis out of them. A fact of life (recently reinforced by our senior Senator and his new yacht).
who files as a resident of PA because the income tax rate is only 3.25%
Many of them are in the wealthy category.
<
p>Granted this is far more of an issue at the federal officeholder level that the state level, it is still disheartening.
<
p>Looking over the last decade:
<
p>Rose Kennedy has her estate settled in Florida. Had not been in the state in over a decade and should have paid a MA estate tax but managed to have her estate settled in Florida, no estate tax.
<
p>John Kerry registered his boat in Rhode Island rather than MA thereby avoiding MA sales and excise taxes until called on it. Yes, he does not directly own the boat, its owned by an LLC, another feature that the wealthy use to avoid taxes that working class people pay.
<
p>The issue is not just what you tax, but who will implement the taxes. Say income and the Kerry’s and Kennedy’s will be on board as their income is lower compared to their wealth. Say that you want to tax wealth and you already have some examples of how they will react.
<
p>It is important to look at whose money you are talking about when discussing tax policy. Not just who is going to be taxed, but where do the people who make tax policy fall with respect to those groups. Even in government it is easier to tax someone else than yourself.
but don’t start talking about a 100% tax rate (marginal or otherwise.) That would kill the whole idea in a flat second, and end any hope that a graduated tax increase could become a reality.
My point in mentioning a “100% marginal rate” is that it demonstrates the inability of any income tax to impact the already-wealthy.
<
p>There are two new taxes that I support before I support a graduated income tax:
<
p>
<
p>In my view, a graduated income tax (a) is hard to pass, (b) fails to tax the truly wealthy, (c) doesn’t raise enough new revenue to merit the fight, and (d) is bad public policy because it further entrenches the already enormous barrier that separates the truly wealthy from the rest of us.
Medicaid for nursiong homes. Food stamps. Senior Citizen Circuit Breaker. Estate taxes. On and On.
<
p>I have ALWAYS said that projected tax increases are avoided by the truly rich who have the resources and flexibility to avoid them. I once said that the Democrats aim to shoot the wealthy in the eye, and their aim drops and they shoot the middle class in the gut.
<
p>We have too many income based entitlement programs. We need asset testing.
and we forget about the envy part. Someone else has something you don’t; so what. Take people’s wealth and make everyone poor, after communism haven’t we learned that lesson yet?
There is a middle ground between zero wealth tax (zero capital gains tax, zero estate tax, etc., as sought by the GOP) and “make everyone poor”.
<
p>A five percent tax on estate transfers for estates whose value is in excess of $5M is not going to make anybody “poor”.
<
p>In a time when more of us practiced genuine “family values”, there was a concept called “noblesse oblige”. The Christians among us learned it as “unto whom much is given, much is expected.”
<
p>The irony of a political movement attempting to wrap itself in the cloak of Christianity while simultaneously proclaiming a public policy of “I’ve got mine, so screw you” is striking.
First off please don’t try to wrap my views in a cloak of any religion. I stand for nothing of the sort.
<
p>Second, good – go carry out your obligations, nobleman. But know that there is a vast difference between taking on personal responsibility to help others (here I might mention the disparity between charitable giving between D’s and R’s if I wanted to further discuss your last point), and TAKING WEALTH FROM OTHERS to hand out. One constitutes honorable giving, the other constitutes arrogant thieving.
<
p>I happen to agree with you about the gross misunderstanding about “taxing the rich” – but to me the solution is a flat income tax, not MORE taxes. It is never my goal to tax certain people more than others, because I simply don’t look at the wealth of others as something that I might rightly confiscate.
never have been, never will be.
“equal” taxes
I suspect that it refers to geographic uniformity — you can’t asses a tax rate in Massachusetts which is lower than in Texas.
<
p>Knowlton v. Moore 178 U.S. 41 (1900) and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
<
p>(note — this is all from wikipedia. IANAL. Could one please chime in)
Until the 16th amendment, which only said you can tax income and it doesn’t have to be equal by state (population). It did nothing to alter the overall general principle of uniformity (IMO).
<
p>Before then, since there was (most times) no income tax, there really wasn’t a big focus on federal taxation of individuals. We taxed a hell of a lot less back when we were busily making the transition from a set of tiny colonies to the most powerful nation on Earth.
<
p>Stupid 20th century notions.
all stupid 20th century notions.
16th amendment gives carte blanche on income taxes, plus neither federal provision means anything for what states do with their tax rates anyway. Previous commenter is correct, uniformity means nationwide not person to person.
but if you note that the 16th amendment is a clarification not a brand new thing, you’d have to accept the primacy and relevance of section 8 for all taxes.
<
p>When in doubt, err on the side of thinking that the constitution protects the rights of PEOPLE against GOVERNMENT.
<
p>Cool?
The Bill of Rights specifically lays out what the government can’t do. The rest is about powers and how the government is structured. I’m pretty sure SCOTUS disagrees with you and I’ll take their opinion over yours. It gives the power to tax incomes that previously Uncle Sam did not have and in no way qualifies it. After all, the first application of the income tax was that ONLY the very rich paid any, so historically the idea that income tax could only be flat is ludicrous.
Bill of rights is part of the constitution, as is the 16th. The main difference is that the bill of rights went in immediately. That aside,
<
p>
I also don’t know where your block quote is from. Where it says “clarified” I often see “superceded”. This section happens to not mention uniformity. I think your section 2 is from the 14th amendment which I’m not sure how is relevant here. If income taxes were levied by the feds at different rates in different states you might have a case. Anyway, it’s SCOTUS that counts here and I think you need to join “Don’t Get Cute” in the twisted constitutional interpretations Hall of Shame.
is from the original unamended constitution, you don’t recognize it?
<
p>The parens indicate the section modified by the 16th and some “helpful” notes, I could have left them out.
<
p>Ironic that a liberal would think the SCOTUS should trump the constitution. In practice, that is unfortunately how it turns out but its a pretty awful way to go about democracy. You’ve got 9 unelected judges vs. the collective will of the founding fathers and all subsequent generations, who have at their disposal an appropriately challenging means for amending the constitution.
<
p>Or you could just pack the court.
Of course I recognize the constitution itself. SCOTUS gives the prevailing view, like it or not.
…but we’ve been through all this before. Taxation must reflect our values and be fair. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you don’t stand for religion. If you did maybe you wouldn’t be so selfish, but I know I prefer to be wealthier even with a higher burden than making so little I’m eligible for a refund.
Because I won’t advocate for taking your money then I’m selfish? OK, so you don’t qualify as a target right now, but what if you did? Or what if you didn’t feel like you should but I wanted to take your money anyway? Then would I be selfish?
…I long for the day where I can qualify as a target. I believe in paying for public services and will be more than happy to do it when I can.
you just don’t know it yet.
<
p>You live like a king compared to some. You need to pay your fair share.
Um, Peter, estate taxes DO use an asset-based criteria.
<
p>If the federal government actually taxed wealth, instead of income, we would not need income-based restrictions on entitlement programs.
The Kennedy example is a good one. Why fudge where you die when taxes are not an issue? Let the assets pass, and be added to the overall burden of those you benefit. Could have an added side effect of increasing charitable giving.
The estate/gift tax laws should collected by the feds and a portion redistributed to the state(s); it should not be possible to materially affect estate tax status by manipulating claimed residency.
<
p>The point of estate taxes is that they not be a burden on those who benefit — they are paid from the estate of the deceased who is quite literally unable to feel any pain.
<
p>Similarly, gift taxes are never paid by the recipient — they are (beyond generous thresholds) obligations of the giver.
I’m a little confused on this whole estate tax passing down money being bad thing. Let’s say I won the lottery. After the taxes I pay before even seeing a dime I wind up with 80 million dollars. If you’re going to dream dream big! Why can’t I do what I want with that money? If I donate it all to charity they don’t pay any tax on it but if I donate it to my son he does. I’m just a working class guy who got lucky. My fortune was not made hundreds of years ago in the slave trade. Why can’t my son enjoy the same benefit a charity can? Of course I could create a charity and put my son in charge of it. There’s a plan.
was earning your own way — not being rich merely because your lineage has been rich. You earn it yourself. We reward merit, not luck.
<
p>You son can enjoy the same benefit that a charity can — if he’s a charity case. Is your son a charity case?
Kinda sounds like a personal attack but let that go. First where in the Constitution does it say anything about earning your way or lineage? Second you say “You earn it yourself. We reward merit, not luck.” but you advocate punishing people who earn more and redistributing it to people who do not earn it. I still don’t see a logical reason I can leave my heir $10,000 with out them being taxed but if I leave them $10,000,000 they are taxed.
The “logical reason” you seek is in the history of Europe — specifically, the distinctions that emerged between “the nobility” and everybody else, and the devastating impact those distinctions had on the fabric of day-to-day life in Europe.
<
p>Government costs money. Nobody likes taxes. The money has to come from somewhere.
<
p>Some of us feel that taxing 5% of an estate worth $20M, so that your heirs collect “only” $19M, is more fair than taking that same million dollars out of the wages of a thousand $20K/year workers.
<
p>Some of us, apparently, disagree.
I happen to think that it would be better for the civic heath of the society to have 1,001 people with a financial input into the government, than it is to have 1,000 drawing on 1.
<
p>In my view, “progressive income tax” is lovely in the abstract, but doesn’t work in practice. In the real world, it is gamed, and tinkered, and little breaks are given to this and that special interest, and we wind up with a huge bureaucracy administering a byzantine tax system, in which true wealth pays little to none and the middle class gets hammered. It provides huge incentive for one part of the population to screw another part, and vice versa. The only way it will ever work is if one believes that good intentions and good government can overcome human nature. They can’t, and so it will never work. I see no reason to adopt a policy in Massachusetts that only works in theory.
<
p>Were I appointed grand-poobah of the country or state, I would scrap the entire tax system, from A-Z, and replace it with (i) the Steve Forbes flat tax (single rate for all taxpayers, no brackets, no deductions of any kind; short term capital gains are income, and long term capital gains are not taxed); and (ii) because income tax misses wealth, a VAT on all goods and services. The wealthy consume more, they pay more VAT. If they’re not consuming, they’re saving, which is super. Eventually, the savings get spent, and the VAT gets paid.
We agree on the VAT, I’m still not with you on long-term capital gains.
<
p>I think that, ultimately, no income tax policy will ever prove workable. Once any tax policy is written that describes “taxable income”, creative tax consultants will find ways to make sure that such income is avoided.
<
p>For example, if one security (that happens to have gained significant value in the most recent quarter) is pledged as collateral on a loan used to purchase another security, has any taxable event occurred? I don’t think so. Nothing has been sold, so there has been no “gain” (capital or otherwise, long or short term) to be taxed. Yet the security holder has just significantly increased their wealth.
<
p>I think a VAT on all goods and services goes about as far as it’s practical to go. Some have argued (I’m still on the fence) that corporate purchases and sales should NOT be excluded and that the VAT obligations should be passed on directly to shareholders/partners.
<
p>Still, when all the dust settles, a handful of people will nevertheless accumulate disproportionate wealth — to the detriment of society. Lazlo Barabasi has argued, convincingly I think, that this is because our economy is a scale-free network — the degree-distribution of wealth is naturally linear on a log-log scale. The problem with our current approach is that we’ve allowed the slope to be too steep, so that too much of the wealth has accumulated in the top 1-2% (leaving everybody else starved for wealth).
<
p>Hence, an estate/gift tax is necessary long-term economic policy — society benefits when excess wealth of the top 1-2% is returned to circulation after their demise.
<
p>2. I see no reason why the accumulation of wealth should itself be something to be negatively targeted by a tax. Who gives a *&^ if someone is rich. The estate tax is too easy to game anyway, unless you aren’t really that rich. I would be content to see it go. If people get rich, they can spend their money (VAT!) or invest it, both of which should be A-OK with me. Indeed, fixing this “problem” seems to me to be exactly the sort of social engineering that doesn’t work.
<
p>3. I like the VAT that is collected at each exchange along the way. (Mining company to smelter, smelter to manufacturer) That way, each buyer has incentive to make sure the VAT has been paid along the way, which means fewer IRS agents. While, in theory, that means that the VAT gets passed on to shareholders, in reality that means the VAT gets passed on to the buyer. That’s OK, a consumption tax ought to be paid by the consumer. The retail receipt should have a line that shows how much of the purchase price of the thing you just bought went to the VAT, so that it doesn’t become a sneaky tax.
You are more than welcome to take your riches and set up a charity for which your child can be a beneficiary. For example, if he’s blind, then setting up a school for the blind which he (and others) could attend would be perfectly appropriate.
<
p>If, however, your child is not in need of charity, well then, if you can’t see the difference between giving to charity and giving to your own non-needy child, then I can’t help you.
I don’t that this is the case, or has ever been the case, or should be the case. Government is far to blind, deaf, and dumb to distinguish luck from merit.
to our children. Our moral code says they are not responsible for debts they did not earn.
<
p>But you are suggesting they can use personal liberty to ignore debts, and to collect a windfall that is not theirs?
Just think that we, as a state and nation have crossed the threshold and are now not only passing on our debts to our children, but our grandchildren too.
<
p>Just look to the unfunded pension and health care liabilities at all levels of government and I can only come to the conclusion that we, sadly, have broken that covenant.
I agree with the general point though, however, the type of asset is an issue. For instance, I’d support Medicaid funded home care benefits for someone living on a low fixed income but living in a home that has a high asset value, so long as that asset wasn’t eligible to be exempt from the estate tax, even if it’s under $1 million.
Wrong — there certainly is one. It’s $2000, with some exclusions for the spouse of the nursing home patient, and a lien can be placed on the most valuable of those excluded assets, the home. The mass.gov link.
Trusts, other instruments – these are used routinely by the well to do and are not available to many/most. Again – without the incentive to artificially shrink income to qualify, why bother? Like trying to die in Florida.
<
p>Of course, the TRUE solution is nursing home insurance. How idiotic is it that you CANNOT buy such a policy when you are young to care for yourself? When I sold insurance, you couldn’t BUY a policy until you were 55, no naturally the premiums were high.
<
p>Also – Mass. needs to think about Medicaid covering nursing home care at all – THAT is the explosion in Medicaid expense, not illelgal immigrants in emergency rooms, but comfortable people having the state pay their extended care because they were able to ‘reduce’ their income to protect their ‘sacred savings’. MANY states, including NH, do not. Which is why some NH residents move to MA for nurisng home care – Weld tried to establish a residency requirement of 2 years to prevent MA being exploited, but the Feds told him he could not.
That’s precisely the asset test that, as you say, a legal industry has grown up around to circumvent — the cat-and-mouse game between the government and the legal profession. Actually, trusts like you describe — created in order to qualify a person for Medicaid “on paper” while the assets in those trusts pass to family members –have been invalid for a number of years. Score one for the gov’t side.
<
p>
From cash assistance to nursing homes to subsidized housing.
Let’s say I make 100k a year and blow it all on going out every night to expensive clubs and restaurants, while my neighbor makes 60k a year and assiduously saves as much as she can so she can afford to buy a house, put her kids through college and retire. Are you saying that I should pay less taxes than my neighbor?
Look at some of the underwater mortgages that reflect your Grasshopper scenario – they will be ‘rescued’ by stimulus. Government has devolved into concentrating more on saving the poor, ignorant electorate from the consequences of its own bad decisions than rewarding the responsible who lived within their means.
<
p>Grasshopper – good. Ant – Bail grasshopper out.
or anyone who makes $60,000. Besides, someone who makes $60,000/yr is probably just getting by, and is struggling to pay for basic needs. $60,000/yr is about $865/wk after taxes. Take out the $1700. mortgage, a weekly grocery bill of $175. and the many other budget killers (electric, health care, car payment, etc), this person is not saving much money these days. And they also do not qualify for financial aid for college because they are not considered low income.
<
p>I suppose a single person in a rented apartment without a family to feed would have more discretionary income at those salaries. I think the discussion here is more about the highest incomes and assets. Not this level of income and assets.
<
p>
Tom’s original post said “Tax WEALTH, not income”, which lead to my critique. What it sounds like you’re proposing is in an addition to a tax on income we have a wealth tax that has very high exemptions, like the Estate Tax. Do you really think that only taxing the top will replace the income tax entirely or am I missing something?
since we know we are facing tax increases, and probably soon. At least that’s what I’m talking about. I’m not sure that BT is talking about a complete overhaul of the tax code (Maybe I misread his comment). So now I see what your saying from that perspective. If we only taxed accumulated wealth, you’re right, that could be a problem for relatively small savings accounts, unless there were exemptions. I don’t think taxing wealth alone is reasonable. We should all pay some sort of taxes. It’s just time to stop giving tax breaks and loopholes to the those with most and then in turn take more from those who live week to week.
I have proposed taxing the wealth of the top 1.6% of the income distribution — those whose household net worth is in excess of $10M. That 1.6% of the population hold thirty five percent of the wealth in Massachusetts.
<
p>Your neighbor who makes $60K/year would have to save 100% of her income for 167 years to cross that threshold.
<
p>Yes, I propose to replace the income tax. Please allow me to repeat what I wrote up-thread:
<
p>I believe these two taxes could, taken together, replace the federal income tax (of course, the rates would have to be set). If the states did likewise, we could stop taxing income altogether.
<
p>America is the wealthiest nation on Earth and the wealthiest society in human history. It is absurd to claim that we, as a society “can’t afford” the taxes needed to sustain the government services required by this wealthy society.
I think it’s too big of a step and way off the beaten path.
Maybe the wealth tax could be implemented as a part of an overall tax increase.
The federal income tax was also a big step, and was also way off the beaten path. The America of FDR’s time recognized that the unprecedented catastrophe of the Great Depression — and the government’s woeful inability to deal with it — demanded an unprecedented response.
<
p>In my view, we face a similar crisis today. Our government has failed. Miserably. The evidence is all around us, if we can pull ourselves away from our TV sets and “sporting” events long enough to look. You have correctly articulated the devastating impact of the current approach on the lower and middle classes. I have shown the enormous disparity in wealth distribution of today’s Massachusetts and America. The information is on the table.
<
p>This is the challenge of our generation. A previous generation rose to a similar challenge in the aftermath of the Great Depression.
<
p>The question is whether our generation has the courage and wisdom to do the same.
<
p>I’m not familiar with any connection between the depression, FDR, and the income tax.
FDR instituted payroll taxes in 1937 and mandatory federal withholding in 1942. He coupled a vision of a strong and compassionate federal government with the political and economic will to pay for it.
<
p>FDR reshaped the political landscape for generations, and skillfully used all the tools at his disposal to realize his vision. While the federal income tax was enabled in 1913, it was FDR (specifically, his decision to institute payroll withholding) who transformed it into a major tool of federal policy. The right wing has been fighting to reverse that change ever since.
Devastating.
<
p>At a time when Evan Bayh might show real courage if he were a real Democrat, he has instead chosen to tow the line for the wealthy and the Republicans, and leave the working middle class holding the bag.
<
p>
<
p>Thank Goodness Rep. Raul Grijalva has been listening.
<
p>
<
p>He should also make it clear that without this tax increase on the wealthiest among us, the tax burden will fall on the working middle class in the form of regressive tax increases at the state and local level.
<
p>I would really like to see some courage here, and I would also like to know how these Republican plants keep getting elected as Democrats.
You should be aware that the wealthiest among us, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett etc, will probably pay no income tax at all, whatever the rate is. I would be very surprised if Teresa Heinz Kerry paid any income taxes. You can go to any accounting firm and listen to these people scream at their tax preparers if you don’t believe me.
<
p>What really are you trying to achieve here?
— less inequality
— taking more from the rich people
— more overall happiness
— more money for Judy
— some other thing
Maybe there are better ways to achieve these goals by mixing up the tax code. I am not against a progressive income tax out of hand. But it’s not an end in itself.
<
p>See, I’m calling out this nonsense. Yes, they pay income taxes. I have no idea if it’s via themselves personally or some financial machination, but this pipe dream that the very wealthy pay no taxes is just foolish. Unless you have one shred of evidence that they pay no taxes, lose the hyperbole, wouldja?
<
p>Do they pay people to find all the ways to pay less? Of course. They ain’t paying nothing though.
I do believe that once someone reaches that degree of financial independence, you figure out how much income you need to simply pay the ordinary expenses of life like groceries, the electric bill, and car repairs. There is only so much you can spend on this stuff, no matter how wealthy you are. This sum is $X. Among your investments is a portfolio comprised entirely of government bonds, federal, state, muni-bonds. You ensure that sufficient assets are invested in this portfolio such that the income is greater than or equal to $X. Now, you have income to cover your ordinary living expenses, untaxed.
<
p>Other assets are invested in other assets, perhaps diversified, or perhaps concentrated in the company you founded. Little bits of this can be liquidated from time to time for “extraordinary” expenses. New house on Nantucket? Need a new roof for the old house on Nantucket, thanks to Earl? New Bentley, or yacht? Liquidate some stock. Sure, that is income subject to the income tax applicable to long-term capital gains: 15%. Here’s an opportunity to sell that GM stock for a loss to set off against the gain.
<
p>So, if you are truly wealthy, such that you no longer need a salary to make ends meet, and you plan, your tax burden can be quite light.
You’re still taking about somebody who is living on the level of his car, what car he drives etc.
<
p>In fact there is a lot more to spend money on, such as your kids cars, and getting them into Harvard, and your grandchildren and so on.
<
p>But you are right that at a certain point, even there having money will not make it happen. It will not provide separation between your heirs and the great unwashed who still make money.
<
p>At this point you can do what Buffett did, by establishing charitable foundations for his kids with a billion each. This gets you out of all the taxes while maintaining the power to achieve your social ends. For instance, how many tenured college professors are backed by family foundations which donate to the college?
<
p>At another level, your foundation can push for laws and regulations which will block the great unwashed from gaining wealth and income to challenge your heirs at the top of the social pyramid.
The only explanation I can find for your ignorance of this practice is that you are poor, or young and naive, and I feel bad punishing you for that.
<
p>You must believe that rich people are somehow like you, but with more income, and that they operate on the same economy as you do. However there are people so rich they sit around having lines written into the federal tax code to reclassify their income as something untaxable.
<
p>Maybe you think somebody making $300,000 in income per year is a rich and powerful person, however when they are paying a rate of 35% for what they make, and Buffett is paying nothing, who is more powerful?
After reading this diary, I admit I’m puzzled. I wonder what other states are doing?
<
p>We are getting our revenue from about 5 places: income, property, sales, corporate, and licenses/other. Our two biggest are income and property — but we’re being knocked for being the most dependent on both of those two.
<
p>What’s the alternative? The sales tax? That’s more regressive than the income tax or the property tax, especially because as you get richer, you tend to spend more of your money on services rather than goods (like paying someone to cut your lawn rather than doing it yourself, or shelling out $20k for private school for your kid). I think that is why wealthier people are so hot for a “value added” or flat tax, because I suspect that such a tax would not apply to services.
<
p>Should we increase corporate taxes? Aren’t they the most ephemeral of all, since they disappear during recessions when profits vanish?
<
p>Should we be charging more for licenses?
<
p>Is there another kind of tax out there that we’re missing?
<
p>The state needs to strike a balance with taxes. It is good that some taxes are based on people’s ability to pay (like income), but it is also good that some taxes will come in consistently year after year (like property), otherwise it will be boom-and-bust.
…not every state has a constitutional prohibition of graduated income taxes. I’m pretty sure the Canadian version of a sales tax is the GST, that is “Goods AND SERVICES Tax, so that could be a way to go. One reason I like this method of taxation is that it’s based only on the wealth you actually use. It also makes no judgement about how you got the money, whether through wages, inheritance, gift, lottery, game show, yard sale, etc.
To the extent possible to tax private and business consumption rather than production.
Let’s drop the top rate down to 5% as the citizens voted for overwhelmingly in 2000.
<
p>Then let’s increase the personal exemption for lower income earners. This will make the income tax more progressive or graduated if you prefer.
<
p>Also by reducing the sales tax back to the original 3% will increase tax fairness as the sales tax is a regressive tax.
<
p>So, lower taxes but more progressive. What’s not to love?
paid for by increased property taxes and other regressive taxes that will directly hit the working middle class.
Or it will be paid for by less funding for schools and other essential services. Tell the middle class that maybe they pay $200/yr now for school bussing(which by the way, we never had to pay for prior to the Bush tax cuts), but after we cut the income tax, your families budget will now be drained of $500-$1000 dollars/yr for bussing.
<
p>Go ahead Brad – tell the people the truth.
<
p>It would be great to cut the sales tax to 3% and then pay for it by increasing the income tax on the highest earners, as well as increasing taxes on useless obscene hoarded wealth.
We need to stop thinking linearly and really look at how we deliver government services.
<
p>Go back to 2000 and what we were spending on core programs. Then move forward to 2010 adjusting for inflation, population growth, $700 million a year for Romneycare and even add $100 million a year each year for new programs.
<
p>What would we have spent on core programs? About $20 billion or $8 billion LESS than we actually spent. The numbers the state publishes appear to be less but one has to remember that we have moved huge programs like the School Building Authority and the DOT off budget.
<
p>So, even with the income tax at 5% and the sales tax at 3% we would only be reducing taxes by $4 billion and that assumes no growth in economic activity due to lower taxes.
<
p>At $24 billion in spending, state government would still be $4 billion higher than can be accounted for by inflation, population growth, Romneycare and $100 million a year in new programs.
<
p>If you look at the State’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2009 http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/… you will see that the state spends ~ $8 billion that they basically list as “Other and Miscellaneous”.
<
p>Pennsylvania has double our population but the same budget.
<
p>Massachusetts has 15% LESS people than Virginia but their state government has 82% less bureaucrats. (Source: US Census report on public employment. Bureaucrat is defined as Government Administration as opposed to government workers who directly serve the public.)
<
p>I will definitely tell people the truth. We need to cut a bloated, dysfunctional government. We can provide essential services while still cutting taxes.
I see a lot of smoke and mirrors here about how we should be able to cut billions from our budget easily. Yet I see not one single specific cut being proposed.
<
p>Why don’t you propose something concrete? Surely you must have an opinion as to what you want to cut? Or are you afraid that if you reveal your proposed cuts, people will become angry?
Actually I have previously posted ideas of ways to save money in the comments from a prior post, http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/diary…
<
p>
<
p>I would also merge and in many cases eliminate some of the over 30 agencies, commissions and quasi-governmental organizations involved with business and economic development.
<
p>I would consolidate the licensing and permitting functions which are currently spread across 120 different offices.
<
p>One of the difficulties in saying “exactly” what should be cut is that our state government doesn’t tell us “exactly” what they are spending money on or how many people work in individual agencies and departments.
<
p>Yes I would look to cut personnel but not across the board. One should wonder why it takes roughly 10,000 more government employees to provide services today versus 2000 when our population has barely increased. Given the increases in the private non-manufacturing sector, state government should at least be able to provide services with the same number of people.
<
p>I would start by looking agency by agency and would first look at administrative/management staffing levels before looking at state workers who directly provide services to the public.
If I really wanted to take the time to pick apart what you just posted, find the data and scrutinize it, I have a feeling that what you just put together would turn out to be hogwash.
<
p>I agree that the state of Massachusetts does waste money. We can and should correct that, as a seperate issue. Then, as the corrections and savings are put in place, tax cuts can be implemented. The first thing though, before tax cuts, is to fully fund our programs, make education a priority and then give the first tax cuts to the working middle class, so they can realize the beginning of the modest prosperity that has been slipping away from them for the last 10 years.
<
p>If we allow you, a Republican, to implement a tax cut for wealthy Americans first, you will then pat yourself on the back and then probably help add to wasteful spending. Republicans have not won the award for honest or frugal government.
services. You cut them, and then give tax cuts to corporations.
Your comment is hardly worth a reply but in the spirit of engagement I figured what the heck.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, of course. Why do research and educate yourself as to the facts when you can have “feelings.”
<
p>Of course I haven’t argued for tax cuts for the wealthy and of course it was a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature that approved $250 million per year tax credits to highly profitable bio-tech companies and out-of-state movie producers. As mentioned in my comment above, I advocate rescinding those tax giveaways and using the money to help fully fund our schools, local aid, libraries, etc.
<
p>It is my Democratic opponent who has voted to cut these and other important social safety net services and programs. The democratic controlled legislature with it
s veto-proof majority has had total control of the budget for decades.
<
p>Regardless of how you “feel”, the fact is that you can’t blame our underfunding of programs on Republicans.
I will blame the Republicans for program underfunding. OR if not Republicans than the Republican method of governing, which unfortunately, and for some misguided reason, has become the new way many Democrats want to govern these days.
<
p>I don’t have any obligation to review your contributions for accuracy. Anyone at all can believe the points you provide if they choose to. I’m not going to take you at your word, and I don’t have the time or desire to do the research. I have done my own research and have come to my own conclusions about the issue of taxation in Massachusetts and the U.S. If I was led by my feelings instead of by research, I’d be in the Tea Party.
Which trees are going to grow the rest of the money we need to pay for services? I’ll see your top rate at 5% and raise you a repeal of Prop. 2 1/2!
If you got to come up with a new tax which one would you get rid of.
I’m asking the author. (I’m well aware that the point for you is not to have progressive taxes or regressive taxes, it’s just to have more tax money for you and your buddies and less money for the rest of us.)
in favor of a flat income tax.
<
p>Does that count?
Is it about fairness, or is it more about increasing revenues?
<
p>If it’s about increasing revenues, why? Are Massachusetts state government expenditures too small? By what standard? Is a higher level of government expenditure always better?
<
p>In perusing macroeconomic data, current expenditures relative to state GDP seem to show Massachusetts to be just about average. So, why would we want to grow the size of government expenditure further?
<
p>Wouldn’t a better goal be to improve the efficiency of existing government expenditure rather than spend more? Where are the incentives for government to improve fiscal performance?
With the economic downturn revenue from sales and income taxes collected have declined. The question is how to fill the gap and meet the obligations of the state.
<
p>While it is always productive to continue looking for more efficiencies, no one has been able to identify such in the amount necessary to cover the present deficit.
<
p>Measures so far have included cutting local aid, which passes the problem along to cities and towns who cut services and increase property taxes, (regressive),
increasing the sales tax, (regressive)
cutting pensions and services, (regressive)
increases in tax breaks to corporations and financial institutions, (regressive)
<
p>This post is suggesting that the burden of the cuts and increase of the taxes should not fall so heavily on those who are suffering the most themselves from the economic downturn, be shared in a more equitable fashion – by those who profited.
discernente asks:
<
p>Yes, they are too small.
<
p>The standard? I lived in Massachusetts in 1974. I live in Massachusetts today. Our quality of life — as measured by my ability to see a doctor when sick, the education children received in the public schools wherever I lived, and the transportation systems I used — is dramatically lower today.
<
p>The Green Line was an attractive commuting option in 1974; it is far worse today. Entire sections of I-93 bridge decks collapsed a few weeks ago, during drive time. That did not happen in 1974.
<
p>Our transportation infrastructure is crumbling from decades of negligence. Our education system is in shambles because of decades of cutting taxes. Our health care system is in chaos because health care costs are skyrocketing and our government lacks the will, means, and expertise to control it. Millions of eggs were recalled for Salmonella poisoning this summer because we dismantled the federal regulatory agencies that used to protect our food supplies. Our economy collapsed in 2008 because we dismantled the federal regulatory agencies that used to protect us from predatory financial interests.
<
p>In 1974, the maximum annual credit-card interest rate was set by law to be no higher than 18%. There are no such limits today.
<
p>Since the Reagan/Prop 2 1/2 era, we have pursued this “better goal” of “improv[ing] the efficiency of existing government expenditure.” The result has been a DISASTER.
<
p>If I wanted to live in an average state, I’d move to North Carolina or New Hampshire.
<
p>I think our goal should be to match tax revenues with the costs of providing the government needed to sustain the quality of life we seek — for ourselves and our descendants — in Massachusetts.
<
p>Can we quote you on the next ONE Mass Weekly Update?
I’m happy to contribute any way I can.
Tom, the amount of revenue depends much more on the size of the economy. The proportion of the economy which goes to taxation is pretty stable, 15-20%, whatever the tax rates are and whatever the tax design is.
<
p>However the tax rates and tax design have a great effect on the size of the economy overall.
So it’s just coincidence that, after three decades of slashing taxes and dismantling government, our government is unable to provide the basic services needed to maintain our quality of life?
<
p>I’m sorry, but I disagree.
<
p>I believe we have been slashing and “designing” taxes to a right-wing greed-driven standard for three decades. I believe the economy has been destroyed, our quality of life has been qualitatively damaged, and yet some among us argue that we need to slash still more.
<
p>Look, Seascraper, wake up and smell the coffee — it doesn’t work.
<
p>It seems flagrantly, blatantly obvious to me that we have not funded government sufficiently to meet the requirements of the government needed by a twenty-first century first-world society. Consequently, because modern society needs a functioning government, things are falling apart all around us.
<
p>I’m reminding of the practice of indulgences, in the middle ages. When bad things continued to happen to the pious who had paid their indulgences, the answer was that they (a) weren’t pious enough or (b) they must not have paid enough for their indulgences.
<
p>Slashing taxes and reducing government does not improve the economy. Instead, it destroys it.
Taxes always take roughly the same proportion of the economic output: 15-20%. This is the same whether rates are high or low.
<
p>At a certain point with high rates, people will simply avoid the taxes legally or illegally. For instance, Greece has a comparable top rate to ours, 40%. However here in the USA you start hitting the top rate at what $375K/year, while in Greece you hit the top rate at 30,000 Euros (say $45K/year). It’s no coincidence that tax evasion is rampant in Greece, their economy sucks and their government is starved for money.
<
p>So if you want more money, maybe there are better ways to do it than hiking income taxes. I’m not necessarily against hiking them, but I don’t go along with doing it to simply go after the semi-rich, or simply to get lots more money for government.
<
p>People in government want their relative power increased all the time. If the economy was larger, regular people would just ignore them. So I have a lot of suspicions when people who work for government are so ready to chop down the private economy.
It sounds like you object to the superrich getting away with a lot less than their fair share of taxation. Progressives want to write a tax code that somehow doesn’t leave the middle class holding the bag for everyone.
I don’t see evidence the progressive income tax redistributes any wealth away from the super rich, though it ostensibly is designed for that. So I don’t see how a state version will really do so either.
<
p>I’m not sure there is really a way to get at the super-rich as long as we have this form of government. But let’s not make things worse by raising taxes on realtors and doctors. These are not “the rich”.
You write (emphasis mine):
<
p>I’m arguing against hiking income taxes. I’m arguing for consumption taxes and a wealth tax (on the top 2% by wealth, not income).
<
p>You write:
<
p>I am not “in government” — instead, I want government to work. Working government is not free, and when the government revenue falls below the cost needed to sustain working government, the government stops working.
<
p>Our government has stopped working.
<
p>I am not, in any way, proposing that we “chop down the private economy.” To the contrary, the evidence is all around us that three decades of tax-slashing have already chopped down the private economy. The catastrophic collapse of our economy in 2008 was the direct result of dismantling effective government.
<
p>You advocate slashing taxes even more — making the government even less functional.
<
p>A definition of insanity is continuing some dysfunctional behavior, expecting the results to change. It is long past time we stopped slashing taxes, expecting the government to work better.
There are some nice ideas here, but I think your reading of our current blowup isn’t particularly true. The SEC which could have caught a lot of craziness was prevented from doing its job not because of the budget but because the criminals didn’t want the SEC looking into their books. I don’t see that as a matter of taxation.
<
p>As far as the government working or not, basically what happened in healthcare is what the government has become — too much taxation in the nominal service of some public good, but with a lot of the money (half?) being siphoned off by private interests who buy lines for themselves in the legislation.
<
p>What is the point in feeding this thing more money? Especially as you will hurt regular people just trying to satisfy the same needs on their own.
<
p>Actually I take that back.
<
p>Effective government doesn’t criminalize sound lending practices as the Community Reinvestment Act did.
<
p>Effective government doesn’t use economic policy for social engineering.
<
p>Effective government doesn’t encourage people who can never hope to repay their mortgages to take out loans they can never hope to afford.
<
p>The catastrophic collapse of our economy in 2008 was the direct result of misguided government policy promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike.
You wrote:
<
p>Sorry, Brad, but your team had all three branches — the House and Senate, the Executive, and Judicial — for EIGHT YEARS. Your ilk has been pulling this nation towards calamity since the Reagan era, relentlessly dismantling government, relentlessly slashing taxes, relentlessly repeating the canard that “less government is good government.”
<
p>The 2008 collapse of our economy falls SQUARELY on the shoulders of right-wing Republicans who confused dogma for policy.
<
p>You guys were flying the plane, and you flew it right into the ground.