Blogcritics: Comments on Taxing Blues

Comment by Mike Kole

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:55:55 EST

I'm guilty of reading the comments out of any context here, guys. Sorry. I was reacting strictly to JR's rant in Comment 17, and Andy's Comment 18. I saw a line about a vote on a tax and took it into an object lesson about the two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Again, my apologies.

Comment by JR

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:39:24 EST

The most immediate problem with Mike Kole's tax policy is that it's economically unsound. The JR tax policy would generate a large amount of money that could be used for mass transit, which would itself tend to offset the inconvenience it might impose on the very people it targets. Additionally, it would provide an incentive to conserve a declining resource which is critical to our economy and national security. The Mike Kole tax policy, on the other hand, would generate a vanishingly small increase in government revenue. In fact, once JR figured out the score, he'd quit working and you wouldn't get anything out of him. I mean, you might have gotten away with imposing an 80% tax on JR's income; he might be willing to work for 20% of his gross pay if he thought country was being run well enough to justify it (and if it were enough to survive on). But totally taking away the incentive to work from someone who evidently has a far better grasp of good public policy than you, does that make any sense?

Comment by Steve S

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:05:53 EST

Mike, in regards to comment 22: JR said he wanted a big tax on SUV's. That could be the equivalent of a 'luxury tax'. It's a tax on a product. Whether or not a luxury tax is right or wrong, is another topic. what is on topic here is that it is a tax on a product and not a group or class. Why do you equate that with running roughshod over some particular class? Is one group of people unfairly targeted here?

Comment by lee

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:01:45 EST

in the post above it should read JR not make sorry for the mistype

Comment by lee

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:57:52 EST

yes sound like mike wants a dictatorship he hates the constutition and loves big nonworking enslaving goverment instead of SMALL efficents and for the record i do have some gripes about the size of governement under bush but unlike kerry her is starting to get some of the stuff need to get rid of the aicents wasteful goverment

Comment by Mike Kole

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:54:47 EST

Unfortunately, that kind of consideration does enter into the equation of whether or not to run roughshod over some particular group or class, now doesn't it?

Comment by Steve S

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:28:12 EST

would that include "George Bush Jr."?

Comment by Mike Kole

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:05:12 EST

I propose a vote to enact a 100% tax on all people using the handle JR. All in favor? Aye.

Comment by andy marsh

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:17:46 EST

How about this, blue states tend to be union states and unions cost money. My brother lives in a blue state. He's a heavy equipment operator. He makes $35 an hour! That's a cost that is reflected in the price of everything in blue states. Roads, housing, commercial building, you name it. No heavy equipment operator would make that kind of money in a right to work state. It has nothing to do with his level of education. He's a HS grad and that's all. No BS or doctorate, yet he makes more than a lot of people with much higher levels of education. But he needs to make that kind of money. In NJ the house I live in here in VA would cost at least twice as much! Plus there's the taxes. My folks pay 4 times what I pay in property taxes! And they don't even have a muni fire dept! All volunteer! No sidewalks, nothing! Where does all that tax money go?

Comment by andy marsh

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:03:53 EST

Luckily JR, you only get one vote!

Comment by JR

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:16:36 EST

So it's not your money, it's our money. And we get to vote one where it gets spent. And I vote that our money gets spent on mass transit rather than squandered on personal luxuries like SUVs for millions of careless, inept drivers; therefore I vote we tax the fuck out of those things, and raise taxes on petroleum for good measure.

Comment by lee

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:33:00 EST

its the government of the people by the people therefore its nots the goverments money its the money of the people who pay taxes

Comment by JR

Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:35:16 EST

First off its not the goverments money Then how come it's got their name all over it?

Comment by lee

Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:52:00 EST

First off its not the goverments money Seconond we live in a Constutitional Republic third the goverment do not grant our rights our rights are granted by our creator and finlly its time to get rid of the facist irs and batf

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:03:47 EST

The fight for Americans, regardless of economic status, to keep more of what they earn is one I am proud to call myself unpatriotic for Nice spin, but I don't buy it, Mike. You should know me by now, Mike. I love capitalism. I love the American Dream, the Golden Opportunity, the chance for all of us to make our lives better. I also have common sense and rational thought. When one person makes 600 million a year, and pays no taxes or very little taxes through crafty overseas accounts, that money is drained from the United States Institutions of Democracy. Thousands end up suffering in some form or another. Long live Democracy and the American Dream and long live the Progressive checks and balances that make that possible for all Americans. What comes next, Steve? Chaining people to the place they are This belongs in the 'they are going to take our Bibles away Hall of Fame'. Calling the tax burden their obligation is a moral judgment. There is no such thing as a taxless government, a taxless nation. What are you suggesting? Promoting an aristocracy and the destruction of democracy is a moral judgement of the lowest order.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:27:53 EST

Steve- Were the immigrants who left the various nations of the world in order to create a better life for themselves, one that usually included the ability to earn and keep more of the fruits of their labor, unpatriotic? You bet they were, and bully for them! There are plenty of times I don't mind being called unpatriotic. The fight for Americans, regardless of economic status, to keep more of what they earn is one I am proud to call myself unpatriotic for, it that's the definitiion of it these days. What comes next, Steve? Chaining people to the place they are and shutting down their ability to move their assets so that others can greedily confiscate them for their own political ends? Calling the tax burden their obligation is a moral judgment. I guess you can play the game as well as anyone on the far right.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:05:03 EST

To recap a simple basic premise: 1) To leave it as is, harms the middle class. Conservatives are doing this right now for political gain. Progressives want to fix it. 2) To do away with it entirely harms the middle class. Some conservatives apparently are advocating this. Progressives such as myself, can see this is not beneficial or fair, to our country, as it allows millionaires to ship their money overseas, avoiding taxes. We see this as being very unpatriotic. 3) To rework it, so that it accomplishes it's original intent betters the middle class, and prevents millionaires from skipping on their tax obligations to this country. Progressives want this. Conservatives do not.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:56:53 EST

it is also true that they tend to have higher levels of unemployment, underemployment, and homelessness. It is impossible to count the number of homeless. A difference in the definition of homeless can also yield wildly different results. Does a family who lives with a relative, sleeping on the living room floor, because they cannot afford their own home count as homeless? Some say yes, some say no, because they still have a roof over their head. Homeless on the streets will be higher in larger cities, where 10's of thousands can be considered homeless. In rural areas where there are fewer shelters, many homeless will live with relatives. source When you consider the Blue states are states like California, New York, Washington State, east coast states, etc. You can see that they tend to have a higher population being coastal states. Their population is substantially higher than that of say, Idaho, Wyoming or Kansas. It would stand to reason then, that they would have higher numbers in everything, good and bad. The point of the argument on the AMT, though, is that it is a one-size-fits-all application Yes, I know. And as the article points out, the progressives want to fix that and the conservatives want to stall the problem, keeping the middle class in a financial crisis, for political gain. If you like paying higher taxes to live there with no hope of any return on that, rock on. Where did I imply that? What I personally would like is for conservatives to work to fix the problem, so that the middle class isn't punished like they currently are. What conservatives want, and what you clearly want here, is to do away with it entirely, so that the rich do not have to pay anymore taxes on the money they hoard overseas, and less money goes into the system, further deteroriating the middle class.

Comment by JR

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:32:41 EST

Easy solution: the Blue States should secede.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:49:14 EST

Steve, these things aren't occurring in a vaccuum. While it may be true that some of the blue states have higher levels of spending on education, it is also true that they tend to have higher levels of unemployment, underemployment, and homelessness. To pay for the higher levels of spending in both of these areas, you will have to have higher levels of taxation. Those states also have higher levels of regulation of all kinds, which again comes at a cost. The point of the argument on the AMT, though, is that it is a one-size-fits-all application, and no matter the reasons, the residents of the states on the coasts (generally) have higher incomes, thus, will be more severly impacted by the AMT. If you like paying higher taxes to live there with no hope of any return on that, rock on. (Here I'm recalling the posts that showed how the blue states pay out in taxes, and the red states take in pork, proportionally.)

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:10:27 EST

Yes, Steve. That is partially why they are the states most impacted by the law. The other reason is that the same states tend to have a higher tax burden. My response was in response to comment 1. The reason why (it's my understanding), that these states also have a higher tax burden is for the same reason. A more educated workforce garners a bigger salary. This is what drives up the cost of living, rather than the other way around. Then the state will put on a higher tax burden as well. Since taxes are progressive, the high burden doesn't hit the poor (sales tax and the like not necessarily withstanding). The Tax Guide For Investors mentions that Congress is working on solving the problem that you refer to in your post. What is worthy of note here is that it is the Democratic party that wants to help the middle class by correcting the problem and putting the ATM back where it was intended to be, on the wealthy who avoid taxes with overseas accounts, but that it is the Republicans who want to stall the process, thereby harming the middle class, for political gain.

Comment by Harry Forbes

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:03:09 EST

Yes, Steve. That is partially why they are the states most impacted by the law. The other reason is that the same states tend to have a higher tax burden.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:46:48 EST

The salaries are often higher in blue states because they are where you will find the most institutions of learning and the most educated people. It's not exclusive but it is a general rule.

Comment by Harry Forbes

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:35:56 EST

Not so, b. I believe that the Congress is constrained by its own law to make tax changes that are "revenue-neutral"; meaning they can shift an impending tax burden, but not eliminate it. No doubt they trot out some curious financial models to prove this property of law...

Comment by bhw

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:03:21 EST

No it doesn't! Not under Bush, where taxes are cut and spending is increased and wars are waged. That's the conservative way these days.