While answering a question about taxes at the North Shore Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday Patrick said “Personally, I’d like to see a progressive income tax and not a flat income tax. That’s where I’d like to see us go.”
I know many BMGers would also love a progressive income tax to punish all the successful working people in MA but how will other tax payers feel about it. MA residents have consistently been against a progressive tax and insist on a flat tax so the Governor is at odds with the majority of voters.
Why would Deval do this when he already has the left locked in place for the elections. Does he think independents want progressive income taxes?
Please share widely!
This is not true. You know that it is not true. So why on earth should anyone bother responding to an airheaded post that is only meant to be provocative?
…and I ALREADY pointed out the reality of it…
I wasn’t aware of this. I’ve had my differences of opinion with the Governor. This makes me more a more enthusiastic supporter.
Give me a break. Progressive taxation isn’t about punishing rich and you know it. It’s about spreading the pain of tax burdens. And the rich and poor feel a flat burden of dollars as differing amounts of pain.
<
p>A comment from an earlier post (emphasis new):
<
p>
<
p>Any attempt to frame this as punishment is gutless spin at best to ignorance or even malice at worst.
We worked that out in my 8th Grade social studies class way back in the 80s.
<
p>It’s not hard to understand.
<
p>We used pie charts and sample budgets from two households, one “rich” and one “not so rich”.
<
p>JohnD, you might try it. Pie charts are fun.
and he doesn’t understand economics now. These threads shine a spotlight on this lack of knowledge. At least on RMG there are people as clueless about Econ 101, and will nod in agreement, whereas here he gets his ass handed to him regularly (and obviously likes it). As Ken said, why respond to one of his airheaded posts seriously? Big waste of time…
It’s possible that I was being taught Socialist Social Studies and Communist Pie Charts.
<
p>It was a public school in Massachusetts, after all.
<
p>Speaking of Republicans / Conservatives / Libertarians / Tea Party Patriots not understanding Econ 101:
<
p>This is fascinatingly hilarious in its misfire and depressing in its illustration of the right’s commitment to idiot-think:
<
p>
<
p>http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
You are correct in that it doesn’t bother me but I’m just pointing out to other BMGers that all you concentrate on is verbal assaults. Over the weekend check out your comments to me and you’ll see you rarely discuss the subject matter. Why “waste your time…”? Go enjoy the great weather, pick some apples, go leaf peeping…
<
p>I know you are angry with conservatives due to our current success but find another outlet for your anger.
I don’t post very often because I’m too busy with work and enjoying my family and my weekends. And because posters like you drag the level of discourse down to grammar school, so there’s no need anymore to discuss policy with people who bring a pen knife to a gun fight.
But do enjoy your weekend with your family since THAT is what’s really important in this world. Maybe we can at least agree on one thing!
Or are you talking about basketball?
JohnD does not care about what he writes.
<
p>Do not waste time engaging.
you’re right, folks do throw the ad-hom at you too often.
<
p>Then again, at the bottom of your post, you put in
<
p>
<
p>which is, well, stupid and inflammatory. Folks around her are angry with conservatives because they ignore science, lack compassion, and are interested in a government that doesn’t serve people not like themselves. Whether or not it’s true, that’s what folks around here believe. We were just as angry with conservatives in 2006 and 2008 when we were kicking your butt at the ballot box too.
<
p>
<
p>The point is that it wasn’t a one-off. You did it in the diary itself too when you wrote
<
p>It’s childish. It’s unfair. It’s untrue. It’s what generates the ad hom. I know you do it because you eat your own toe cheese which ends up feeding the worms in your brain. See?
I may have missed it while reading your your, whatever it is you were writing.
<
p>
<
p>PS How do you explain conservatives like myself who work in the sciences? Do we not believe in what we do? Do social conservatives have to reject evolution? DNA fingerprinting? The new planet? Could you also please tell all the charities that conservative donate to that we lack compassion?
<
p>Talk about prejudice.
why we should discuss the graduated tax with an anti-intellectual who is going to answer every comment.
<
p>The case you blockquoted has been made elsewhere. For someone who insists on hanging out with liberals, you sure don’t pay any attention to us. Again, another sign that it is useless to discuss things with you.
The bigger the pie gets, the more money each slice gets. You want a screwed up pie chart that takes more from the next slice each time the pie gets bigger. In this case, you want the ‘tax” slice to get disproportionately wider while the “disposable income/savings/retirement…” slice gets disproportionately skinnier.
<
p>But if you want to insult the majority of MA voters by implying even 8th graders can figure this out, then go ahead. In the end, all the voters hear is “gimme, gimme, gimme…”… again!
We also saw that a family with a just adequate budget would find themselves disproportionately pinched for luxuries like food and braces for the kids.
<
p>Whereas the bigger Pie would see squeezes in luxuries like an upgrade from the “family package” to the “Gold Package” on the Caribbean cruise for February Vacation, or luxuries like a new set of golf clubs.
<
p>Gimme, gimme, gimme.
As for …
<
p>
<
p>Good for them. Don’t they deserve to do whatever they want with their money. If my good union friend works 80 hours a week for a month, doesn’t he/she deserve to go buy whatever the hell he wants, no matter how oppulent… with his “extra” money.
I think it might be more “communistic” for the government to take that extra money away and give it to someone else who “needs it more”. The “People’s” pay check.
<
p>Thanks for the remarks though.
If you are so wealthy that you’re getting so much more in taxation, the chances are you have benefitted way more from the infrastructure of the state and the stability of the society propped up by investment by the state.
<
p>You are a millionaire? Might it be b/c you had a good education, financed w/ government loans, predicated on a good public school education? Might it be b/c your employees are smart and innovative–also having gone to schools?
<
p>For example/tip of iceberg. I’m certain that a millionaire’s business benefits from interstate highways and safe air travel (regulated by the FAA). We could go on and on.
<
p>And then there’s this:
<
p>http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
that The Wealthy get a LOT back from The Government.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07…
<
p>Stealing from one person to give to another!
<
p>JohnD, I know you hate that, you’ve said so!
… this (PDF):
<
p>
but people who “do well” are not intrinsically evil. They are just like most Americans, who happen to be smarter or luckier than the rest. I like to use some rich Democrats as examples, The Late Senator Kennedy, our Governor, our President, Oprah, George Soros, the Hollywood crowd… all millionaires but are the blood sucking evil people? No.
<
p>And when I read your remarks about millionaires, it reminds me of the Obama Tax Increase proposal. You/he make an argument about the millionaire bogeymen, and then you apply it to everyone making over $250K. If you are serious about punishing the millionaires then punish them and not the guy making $251K. I think the reality is when you just pick out the millionaires (and billionaires) you don’t end up with a lot of money. You can only get more money by demonizing those very high income people and then applying the graduated tax to the middle/upper middle class (non-millionaires).
<
p>And maybe it’s a mute point since the very rich can invest in tax free bonds… and avoid taxes anyway. Then it’s back to getting more from the middle/upper middle class.
<
p>You seem like you have your finger on a lot of numbers. When we talk about the people making over $250K, how many of them are truly millionaires (excluding their houses)? 5%? less?
It’s not “liberals”.
<
p>Class warfare has been going on for decades, and the “lower classes” lost. Trickle up, trickle up!
<
p>(Wish I could remember how to hyperlink:
CHart from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/…
<
p>See also: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez… )
<
p>++
(PS: you know that the poor guy making $251k would ONLY be taxed at the higher rate on that $1,000 over/above the cut off, right? Because it kind of seems like you are fudging that fact… If it’s because you didn’t know it, now you do. If you did know it, then you’re being very dishonest, and I’m disappointed in you.)
Does anyone know how many people in the US making over $250K are millionaires (excluding their house)?
You represent it the way many either Ignorant or Dishonest conservatives do–as if “I’m going to make myself earn LESS money this year, b/c I don’t want to fall into that dreaded $251,000 category and get TAXED SO MUCH MORE!!”
<
p>I’ve heard it many times and I’m never quite sure if it is ignorance or dishonesty. In your case, I’m sorry to hear that it’s dishonesty.
<
p>Moving on…
<
p>If we want to talk about talking the TRUE millionaires (or whatever benchmark we want to use to define “REALLY wealthy”) at higher rates and scale it downward as we approach $250K, then OK.
.
<
p>.
<
p>.
<
p>.
<
p>(isn’t that a progressive system?)
… because your dodging the actual point completely. You assert ‘punishment’ and ‘class warfare’ while we’ve demonstrated that flat taxes inherently unfair with regard to the distribution of pain.
<
p>Just repeating ‘punishment’ and ‘class warfare’ rather than addressing any actual substance just demonstrates the root of Kathy’s complaints about you.
Oh, so dropping a few charts on the screen “demonstrates” how a flat tax is unfair? Ok, then we can disagree.
<
p>Maybe in a vacuum where so many other systems (no Federal Taxes, graduated Federal Taxes, social services, income dependent benefits at almost every aspect of life including college tuition, subsidies, healthcare, mortgages…) to benefit lower income people didn’t exist, I could agree that a flat tax does not take into account a basic level of income needed for survival.
<
p>However, all these breaks, services… do exist. In the absence of lower income and taking a family making $250K vs $750K or $3M, I support them all paying the same percentage of their income to state taxes. Ignoring deductions/exemptions… they will pay $12,500, $37,500 and $150,000 and that’s wonderful. We disagree and that’s fine.
If I have you correctly…
<
p>Because a family can turn to “social services” if they find themselves in crisis/need, a flat tax that takes (just for examples) their Food and Braces $$$ off the table for them (and golf clubs and new car off the table for the “rich” people)… That’s fair?
<
p>Because the lower income family could turn to “social services” to cover their needs?
<
p>i’m trying to get my head around this.
<
p>Help?
… here. A fair distribution of pain is not achieved by a flat distribution of costs. Either address it or admit defeat. Repeating ‘class warfare’ and ‘punishment’ is inadequate to the task and sophomoric.
that a person making $20K and paying $1,000 in taxes is in far worse financial shape (or has more “pain”) than a person making $100K and paying $5,000 in taxes.
Is this mathematical reality–and the real life hardships it would represent to people on the lower end of the income bracket, and the real life consequences that will result…
<
p>…is all this a compelling argument AGAINST flat tax, in your mind? (and if “no”–why not?)
If it were simply a mathematical formula then it would be easy $20K income, ($0K taxes net $20K to spend)… $50K income ($30K taxes net $20K to spend)… $200K income ($170K taxes net $20K to spend)… but it isn’t. I am not and will not question the fact that people who make less money have less money to spend. In fact that may be the single thing which makes people strive in our country, we want people to blow th doors off their earnings. Part of the American Dream!
<
p>I think the obligation of our society is to protect the people on the lower end so they can live, eat, be educated… I know it may be a surprise but I truly believe in the net to catch all these people. Where we may diverge it how far we go in giving these people things and how much we burden the people who give to these lower income population. You think the more they make then the more they should give (as a percentage) and I don’t. I think the admission price for living in our society should be like the admission price to almost everything else in our world, the same for everyone. We price tickets for Fenway the same for everyone (with a program of set-asides to help the lower income population) no matter how much money they make.
<
p>Charts won’t help convince me otherwise since it is ideology that we are talking about. The only place for “progressiveness” in our tax code is regarding lower income people since I agree there is an irreducible minimum required to live/eat… and they are already taken care of with deductions/exemptions and other programs in our society (No Fed taxes, free college tuition, free school lunches, free healthcare, food stamps…).
you think our society’s safety net is too generous?
<
p>(Are you serious?)
that the guy making $250k didn’t get is on the $1k.
<
p>The first $30,000 Bill Gates gets every year is taxed the exact using the same standards that the first $30,000 a year you make is taxed. In other words, the system is fair.
<
p>BTW: Your suggestion that other people think rich people are “evil” is pure staw man, and the worst kind of straw man. No one’s suggested that. People have merely suggested that wealthy people should share a little more of the burden than they currently do.
Some of my best friends are wealthy people. 🙂
You say “You/he make an argument about the millionaire bogeymen, and then you apply it to everyone making over $250K. If you are serious about punishing the millionaires then punish them and not the guy making $251K.”
<
p>But anyone making $251K is hardly being “punished” and you should know it. The proposed increase is marginal, and only on TAXABLE income over $250K. Even a single person who does not itemize gets a standard deduction of over $5,000. And in most states, you’d itemize, if only for to deduct state income tax. For a Mass. resident making $251K, the state income tax would be over $10K. So you’re talking about someone making a minimum of $260K just to be in the bracket. And if this person owns a home you’re deducting property taxes and mortgage interest. And all kinds of other stuff that people deduct like charitable contributions, capital losses, dues, job and job-hunting expenses, etc. Many people making $300K and up have an adjusted gross income of $250K and down. Even if someone making $320K ends up with an AGI of, say, $260K, would only pay the higher rate on the ten grand over the $250K threshold. A 4.6 percentage point increase in income tax on that ten grand is $466. For a person making $320K.
<
p>Upshot, by the time you’d really feel the difference you’re making well over $250K and you’re something like…a millionaire.
and although I’m sure many people would “feel like a millionaire” if they made that much, that are not millionaires so stop trying to cast the entire lot of people who make over $251K as millionaires, they are not! And my guess is the the overwhelming majority of people making over $251K are NOT millionaires.
<
p>If Obama wants this bill passed, maybe he should change the bill to effect people making over $1M. Then his rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires would be correct and Congress would have a harder time defending a NO vote.
Although you’ve taken the position that a person’s house should not count, I don’t know where the idea comes from that you need a million (or close) in annual income to be a “millionaire.” Back when the book “The Millionaires Next Door” came out, they indicated the median income for a US “millionaire” was $151K and the mean income was $247K. So there are people in that income bracket who are “millionaires.”
<
p>More importantly, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts went to actual, no-doubt-about-it millionaires. If you do have AGI of $2 million, your Bush tax cut was much larger than that of someone making $351 K.
<
p>In any event, the issue is not the rhetoric but the policy. The issue is the policy. Millionaires or not, people making $351K or $451K can well afford to pay the same tax rate they paid in the 1990’s. I’m doing ridiculously well on half of that.
At the top end of the scale, household wealth is far more important than household income.
<
p>We should be taxing household wealth of those households whose net worth exceeds $10M.
Honestly, you cannot complain about ad hominem attacks when you begin that way.
<
p>You don’t care about what you write about.
<
p>That’s why it’s all so sloppy.
<
p>You’re only looking for attention. Nonsense like this is your route to attaining it.
<
p>Please do a better job of pretending you want to debate.
You should see my desk.
<
p>I liked what you said about graduated income taxes… NOTHING (all caps).
<
p>And here’s a news-flash for the great Kbusch. Next time you want to reply to something I write, try to stay on point. Try to ignore the urge to lob hand grenades at me as you never talk about the issue and instead pontificate about me. You’re always throwing the “it’s all about JohnD…” crap in there. Well then, try NOT commenting on ME and comment on the subject matter.
<
p>PS to you and others who commented here… I asked WHY Governor Patrick was coming out supporting the progressive income taxes at this time before the election and whether he was trying to get support from the left or independents. And that by supporting it he was at odds with the majority of MA voters.
<
p>But if I annoy you so much (which I loved doing in my early days of BMG), why bother commenting? Aren’t there other blog sites or other diaries on BMG which could use your superior intellect and eloquence? Why waste the energy of typing on me? I wouldn’t miss you.
<
p>I think the discussion here today has been pretty good. I like leading with my chin, it makes people take a swing… intellectually, plus when people’s blood is flowing they get more honest and engaged. Join in or watch by the sidelines silently.
Q: Did I ever consider you’re sloppy because you’re a slob?
<
p>A: Yes, and your point?
… you passed.
<
p>Holy Straw Man, Batman. The Government doesn’t “give” taxes from one person to another, like free cash. What taxes pay for are necessarily services to make our society run smooth and work. As is more than evident in our struggling economic times, government has struggled mightily to keep those services afloat — and has had to make deep and painful cuts for many of them. Wealthier people, with more discretionary income, should pay more not as a “punishment” but because, at the end of the day, they benefit from having a society that runs smoothly.
<
p>The financial execs in Boston probably don’t use the subway very much, but their employees do — in the thousands. In many ways, despite the fact that they may not use that subway, they benefit far more from it than the people who use it to go to work if you calculate things by dollars and cents. Wealthy execs at our mutual fund companies in town wouldn’t be earning nearly as much if their businesses effectively couldn’t exist, now could they?
<
p>The fact of the matter is a public education system, public transportation system, shared health care pools, etc. etc. etc. benefits everybody, and the more people earn, the more they depend on those who may need those services more than wealthy people do.
What he wrote is an inflammatory, but not inaccurate, description of that portion of the budget that qualifies as “transfer payments.” Anything the government does on a “need-based” basis fits into that category. And make no mistake, transfer payments tend to produce extremely heated and emotional reactions among taxpayers, especially in hard times (when they are most conspicuous and most needed).
<
p>__________________________________________
Off topic:
<
p>In my view, the TARP was politically toxic on both these levels, and is the catalyst for the TEA people’s organization. On the one hand, we have taxpayer money “bailing out” Wall Street, which manufactured the problem. This was outrageous and unfair, but necessary to prevent a bigger problem. To “balance” the unfairness of the TARP, Democrats stuck in ill-advised provisions (which ultimately were small and didn’t work, but got a lot of press) to “bail out” borrowers on underwater mortgages through loan modification.
<
p>So if you were working, your taxes got to bail out the guys who made the mess, and (it seemed) the guys who bought themselves a Mcmansion they couldn’t afford. The sense of catching it from both ends, in the midst of severely difficult economic times, sent an awful lot of people into Very Very Pissed mode.
Taking into account exclusions and deductions, state income taxation is already quite progressive for wage earners below median state income.
<
p>In addition, the state expenditure (and federal block grant distribution) policies tend to be highly redistributive within the state.
<
p>How much more “progressivism” can we take?
Depends on your definition, I suppose. I would argue that the following actual facts show that our state income tax could and should be much more progressive:
<
p>Massachusetts has a relatively low, flat income tax rate of 5.3% percent. Forty-three states have an income tax, almost all with top rates higher than 6% and going up to 11%. Only 7 states do not have a progressive income tax. (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf)
<
p>Without amending the Constitution, Massachusetts could simply raise the income tax rate to 6.3%, keeping it flat, and double the personal exemption. The result of this change?
<
p>All those earning under $61,600 would get a small (less than $125 annually) income tax cut.
<
p>The “middle class”, those making $61,600-$211,500 a year, would see small increases (in the few hundred dollar range).
<
p>Those making $211,500 to $550,000 a year would see an increase of $2,000 annually.
<
p>Those making more than $556,300 in annual income would pay an average of $12,675 more in state income tax annually.
<
p>(http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch/findDocument?doc_id=753)
<
p>That’s how much more progressive our income tax could be. Quite a bit more progressive and it would be pretty easy to do too.
But again, practically speaking… the electorate is deciding on what some are calling a Draconian reduction of the state sales tax from 6.25% down to 3% and the polls are showing a very close vote on it. How could “this” electorate consider raising the state income tax to 6%? I just don’t see it happening.
and not the net effect of all exemptions, deductions, and credits. I still contend the income tax is quite progressive below the median income level.
<
p>Second, many other states have progressive income tax rates (and net tax revenue policy). Most of those same states distribute state expenditures far more evenly among their population (i.e. priority is more toward broad based public goods) rather than dogged focus on redistributive and political ends.
<
p>The point being–stop trying so hard to have your cake and eat it too (i.e. redistributive public policy on both the revenue and expenditure sides of the coin). In short, until the state focuses more on expenditure for broad based public good over redistribution and political gain, I remain against a progressive income tax rate regime.
<
p>BMGers have been upfront proponants of the graduated income tax scheme for a long time. But it is curious how you framed your words on how the people feel…
<
p>
<
p>Do you care how the public feels about this issue? Is this another case of the general electorate being “too stupid” to understand something. I think MA voters overwhelmingly are against a graduated income tax and have defeated any move in that direction. Do you (or the Governor) care how “we the people” feel?
<
p>This “bleeding” of successful people is going nowhere. We keep hearing about Obama’s new tax proposal will only increase taxes on the top 2% of the public and it still doesn’t have support from the majority of Americans. Our leaders(?) ran from DC rather than have to stand up to their constituents and disclose their opinions of raising taxes. I mention this because I think the same feeling inside us that rejects taxing the top 2% is the same feeling that fights a progressive income tax. You can’t teach people to strive to the top while you also tell them if you succeed, we’ll rob you blind. Even the zombie union worker will tell tales of the job where he made great money, but Uncle Sam leeched so much more money because he/she went into a higher bracket.
<
p>Plus we’re accustomed to equal treatment on all levels of our life. When you go out to dinner with friends, do you ask the wealthier people to pay more money for the tab?
<
p>So please go out and profess to the people that we should do this, tell the Governor to have more stones and put it right on his reelection website that he supports this, let’s use this question in every race in MA to see how candidates feel about taking more money from MA residents. I dare you!
… ringing endorsement of Obama over McCain:
<
p>”Is this another case of the general electorate being ‘too stupid’ to understand something.”
<
p>Seriously, do you really want to argue that the public is generally well informed? Granted, they might be were it not for Fox.
I am puzzled by JohnD’s clinging to this in a variety of guises.
<
p>I want to hear that I can eat ice cream every day w/ no added penalty to my ass.
<
p>If you tell me that convincingly enough (perhaps devote several hours a day to it on a national news network?), maybe I’ll buy your magic ice cream.
<
p>Maybe I’ll even vote for you b/c you say you can get me that magic ice cream if only you were in office!
<
p>It’s no surprise that an electorate wants to hear all good news with no hard choices thrown in the mix.
<
p>But obviously that is not what good policy is made up–empty promises, no real solutions. Let the good times roll!
<
p>We will make it awesome for you–just vote for us–you’ll keep your girlish figure AND you can still eat the ice cream!
Ever watch the Jay Leno Jaywalking?
<
p>
<
p>I have said for years that we are a nation of sheep! We’re dumbing down our education system (does anyone get kept back anymore?). Today’s “A” is yesterday “C+”. Ask a cashier to take 5% off your total for a coupon and he/she will almost faint from the challenge of the math problem. But… have you seen that Gieco commercial with Abe Lincoln when Mary Todd asks if her butt looks big in that dress? The public may be “uninformed” but be careful how you tell them that.
<
p>You also can’t have it both ways. Was the electorate “stupid” by electing Obama or was that one of their smart moves? Why is it the electorate is too stupid to have the power of Referendum petition but smart enough to elect our lawmakers to write our laws? If they had a referendum petition to have an intelligence test before someone was allowed to vote, I might consider signing it but that almost sounds like a Republican idea. You might say Republicans would lose middle America but I might say Democrats would lose every major city…
… have it both ways. I was demonstrating how absurd your position was by illustrating that a necessary consequence is that you’d have to be happy about Obama being elected, which you obviously aren’t, which is why you who made the original assertion can’t have it both ways.
<
p>Try to keep up.
I guess you can argue the electorate is stupid, but as far as election results go, the intelligence of voters is beside the point.
<
p>I would argue that our country is particularly stupid these days, but voters vote like the sun shines. I can disagree with the results, but the system is set up for them to make decisions. Results are a fact of life, they can’t be stupid.
<
p>As far as a progressive tax goes, I don’t think you see how we see the argument. You start with the assumption that much, if not most or all, taxation is bad. We don’t. I think there is an either/or implication in your thinking. We don’t see taxes as penalties for luck or success, we seem them as necessary for the common good.
<
p>In a progressive income tax, rich people would pay a larger share of their income because it simply doesn’t affect them that much. A flat tax of, say, 10% would have a more severe effect on someone who makes $20,000 a year than someone who makes $20 million. The former would pay $2000; the latter $2,000,000. Yeah, the millionaire pays more, but effect on he still has $18 million left over. The guy making minimum wage would suffer more from losing the two grand.
<
p>This is what supporters of a progressive tax tend to think. And as far as the Bush tax cuts go, if someone making $275,000 a year has to pay $500 more a year, it isn’t as much of a big deal as it is to the guy who works in a convenience store.
<
p>Never said it and don’t believe it. I want to pay taxes for local services (Fire, police, schools…) and I have no problem paying service taxes (gas tax for roads…) and I am good with paying state taxes (Judges, prisons, Welfare, DSS, Medicare…). I’m a big pusher of a VAT instead of all these other taxes. I don’t like the Excise tax and I don’t like death taxes. We can argue about how much and to whom…
<
p>The tax increase won’t hit me very hard if at all next year. I think the concept stinks and I’m one of those people arguing for the next guy up the ladder who I want to be someday!
<
p>In other words, “vote for me because personally I’d like to see fair taxes, though as a candidate funded by millions of dollars from corporate elites, or as your governor these last 4 years, I couldn’t possibly put such a proposal on the table”.