Today on Blogcritics
Home » Maryland Wants to Be a Progressive (Tax) State

Maryland Wants to Be a Progressive (Tax) State

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The state of Maryland has a flat tax rate in that everyone pays the same tax rate on any income over $3000. The flat tax rate for the state has been in effect for some time with the only fluctuation being in local taxes, a measure from long ago that sucks more money from the wallets of wage earners. Maryland’s new governor, Saint Martin O’Malley, wants to change the way people in this state are taxed so that people will pay their fair share. In O’Malley’s world, fair share means rich people pay a lot more than poor people and Marty wants to accomplish this by implementing a progressive tax system.

It is a fact that the wealthy already pay the largest amount, or shoulder the biggest burden, of taxes in this country. While many will make the argument that the poor pay more in things like tobacco taxes (because they are more likely to use tobacco products) this is a specious argument because tobacco use is a voluntary behavior. Mandatory taxes, as through income tax, is not something anyone can control. The bottom two quintiles of wage earners receive more government (read tax money) than the top three quintiles. In fact, the bottom two use much more in taxes than they pay in and in fact use more in raw dollars than the rich.

O’Malley and his Democratic henchmen in Maryland have spent the state into a financial abyss. There is a huge black hole of mandated programs without funding sources which has created a structural deficit. The money has to be made up somehow and the governor will start off with a progressive tax on income. There is no doubt that there will be an increase in the sales tax, gasoline tax, and a tax on services (except the services of lawyers because the legislature is made up of ambulance chasers). The progressive tax will force higher wage earners to fork over more money so that it can be redistributed to those who make less and consume more. This, of course, is socialism 101 and Saint Martin seems to be at the head of the class when it comes to income redistribution and the defeat of capitalism.

Taxes stagnate the economy and will hurt Maryland in the long run. This is especially true because the Democratically controlled legislature loves to spend money like there is no tomorrow. The only good that will come out of this is that the progressive tax will hurt Howard and Montgomery counties, Maryland’s two wealthiest. They also happen to be heavily populated with Democrats who were on the O’Malley bandwagon when he ran for office.

I can think of nothing sweeter than those rich Liberals getting socked in their wallets by the very man they voted into office. While I personally hope it makes life miserable for them I know that the reality is this progressive tax scheme will hurt every tax payer who earns a decent living. The state will attempt to balance the books off the backs of the wealthier citizens while giving away billions in tax dollars to welfare mothers addicted to crack and ILLEGAL immigrants who are here to do the jobs welfare mothers on crack won’t.

I have an idea. How about if the state of Maryland cuts unnecessary spending and gets a handle on what is going out and where it is going? How about the idea of not making a program without a way to pay for it?

Nah, that would require responsible leaders and the politicians in Maryland have shown they are not responsible and it is evident they are not leaders.

Tax Foundation Special Report (pdf)

Powered by

About Big Dog

  • Doug Hunter

    Progressive taxes work. Productive people are too proud to roll over and quit because of oppressive taxes. Politician’s play on this machismo and shackle workers like pitiful beasts of burden. The real economy is driven by a ever smaller slice of very dynamic thinkers and producers whom the rest of society leeches off of. The leeches have the votes and the guns on their side, best shut up, get back to work, and pony up your share. (or alternatively you can give up and join the throng of losers in which case they also win)

    You can’t beat them and you’re too proud to join them, life must suck for you.

  • Cindy D

    Those welfare crack mothers are at it again. Robbing from the rich.

    I have some questions.

    What about those lower quintile dwellers who actually work 40, 50, 60 hours a week? I wonder if the number of people working as supermarket cashiers, flight attendants, gas pumpers, assembly line workers and the like, outnumber the crack moms?

    Wait, I know…if they’d all gone to college they could all be CEOs of huge corporations and make loads of money.

    I wonder who they could employ to um, run the cash registers, gas pumps, manufacturing lines, and the like? Since there is no one left to fill those positions.

    Instead of stagnating the minimum wage, let’s pay people a living wage. No? Oh, I see, it destroys jobs. So, then we actually need people who make very little money. Business needs cheap labor in order to make more profit. It is this cheap labor that creates the wealth enjoyed by the wealthy.

    It is the time spent, the hours in the lives of people whose work is drudgery that allow the rich to enjoy their mansions and yachts.

    So, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that something be given back in the form of perhaps having basic human needs met to those members of our society whom we have established that not only do we need, but we need to be precisely in the economic circumstances where we argue we must keep them in order to create the wealth enjoyed by the fewer?

    Blame the poor. The rich get nothing. Let’s simply forget 175+ billion in corporate welfare, a great share of which is enjoyed by the the country’s richest corporations.

    “Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits.”

    Who do corporate tax breaks help? Could it be asset owners? Do you think the check out clerk at Walmart is cheering for corporate tax cuts?

    A progressive tax structure allows the rich to get richer AND the poor to get richer. Reducing the taxes of the wealthiest creates conditions where the top quintiles, particularly the highest one, accumulate new wealth at a rate which is disproportional to the bottom quintiles, which begin to lose wealth.

    We have cut tax rates for the rich and stagnated the wages of the poorest for years. What kind of society can we expect if we require so many working people to be kept in economic circumstances that do not meet even the most basic needs for food, shelter, and medical care?

    The information below comes from this link:


    “The following chart [please visit the link for the actual chart] shows the effectiveness of a progressive tax system. When the top rates were truly high from 1950 to 1978, American income at all levels grew at about the same pace. But when progressivity was lost in the 80s, the income of the poor began falling, while that of the rich continued growing.”

    Income Growth by Quintile


    Lowest 20%: 138%
    2nd 20%: 98%
    3rd 20%: 106%
    4th 20%: 111%
    Highest 20%: 99%


    Lowest 20%: -15%
    2nd 20%: -7%
    3rd 20%: -3%
    4th 20%: 5%
    Highest 20%: 18%

    In closing I would like to state that I own a small business. I don’t like paying taxes. I don’t like government waste. I don’t like corporate welfare. But, it has far less affect on me or my lifestyle to pay more tax than it does on my secretary or my shipping clerk. I will not have to “go without” because of it.

    It is not merely a college education that has allowed me to “get ahead”, it is the work of those people whom I employ.

    And that is my “two cents”.

  • Big Dog

    Pretty sure I did not say college was a requirement. I also know that of those jobs you mention, few pay minimum wage. Most make what the minimum wage is right now. Of course, high school kids working in gas stations don’t need more than minimum wage because they are not living on their own.

    Fact is, very few businesses pay the minimum wage because of supply and demand. Illegal immigration suppresses wages because they pay people who are willing to work for under the minimum. It is a minimum wage not a living wage. All of the people are living, eh?

    Corporate welfare, like big oil? Except when they called big oil in and grilled them they did not know what Congress was talking about until one member spkoe up and admitted the tax breaks were for small oil companies in selected districts.

    Microsoft? Not aware of their taxes but did they give away millions in computers and software to schools and such so as to offset their tax liability. It is easy to demonize but large companies do a lot for the poor including Exxon who spends billions on anti malarial drugs for third world nations.

    We have a claim that there are jobs Americans will not do and that is why we have illegals. Make those on welfare work. If we are so concerned about the plight of the poor allow all earners to invest SS in private accounts so we can have OUR own money when we retire.

    Sure there are people who need help but far too many milk the system. A progressive tax is unfair. The wealthy should not have to pay more because they were able to earn money. It is pure envy and is Socialist.

  • Cindy D

    Big Dog,

    No you did not mention college. I mentioned college to preclude the common argument that people could simply all change their circumstance through education if they chose to. I wanted to make the point that a Capitalist society needs a workforce and that workforce deserves to have the means to acquire basic necessities of life.

    “It is a minimum wage not a living wage. All of the people are living, eh?”

    I am at a loss for words. Either you don’t care to debate my point or you are just ignoring it.

    “Microsoft? Not aware of their taxes but did they give away millions in computers and software to schools and such so as to offset their tax liability.”

    Okay, now you are just making things up. How does one “offset” one’s tax obligation by giving things away? Is this new tax system open to me too? Does this mean I can give things away and I can pay zero or 1.4% taxes? I guess I will give my money or products to whomever I prefer and then I won’t have to pay taxes either. Come to think of it, that solves the entire problem for the wealthy. They should all just use your new tax system. Perhaps the working-poor can “offset” their taxes by donating (for a pittance) their time, the most precious commodity a human being can have. Oh, wait, they already do.

    Since you say are not aware you may wish to click on the link I provided. Being aware of what your opponent is saying makes for a much more reasonable argument. Or, on the other hand, one could simply ignore an opponent’s documentation and instead of refuting it, one could simply reiterate one’s position without presenting evidence or examining any presented.

    I am not demonizing corporations. I am merely pointing out two things. 1)It is of benefit to the wealthiest that corporations get such luxurious subsidies and tax breaks. 2) It is a burden on the working-poor and middle class.

    “Corporate welfare, like big oil? Except when they called big oil in and grilled them they did not know what Congress was talking about until one member spkoe [sic] up and admitted the tax breaks were for small oil companies in selected districts.”

    Who called “Big Oil” in to where and asked what? I am afraid I am not sure what you are talking about since you have not cited any references.

    “Sure there are people who need help but far too many milk the system.”

    Based on what information? How to you come to know this? Biased opinion is not convincing. There are no facts to examine, discuss or argue.

    “A progressive tax is unfair. The wealthy should not have to pay more because they were able to earn money. It is pure envy and is Socialist.”

    How is a progressive tax unfair when it allows both rich AND poor to accumulate wealth?

    The wealthy are able to earn more money because of a workforce–that deserves addressing.

    Pure envy? How would you know this? Have you been a member of the working-poor? Do you have a particular form of empathy that enables you to read the minds of other people? Or is casual dismissal okay?

    Do you know what Socialism is? Did I suggest that everyone should be equal or that we should turn over the ownership of the means of production to society? How is it Socialist to tax people who economically benefit most in our society? How is it Socialism to simply try not to punish people for being what we as a Capitalistic society need them to be. What has that got to do with Socialism?

    Here is an idea for you. I don’t have any children. So, why am I paying thousands of dollars a year in real estate taxes, not to mention a portion of my federal taxes to educate yours (or whomever’s).

  • Big Dog

    Your link to MS tax info is from a group that provided its own numbers.

    Yes, you can offset your own taxes by making charitable contributions. When you itemize your deductions you get to take the charity off your taxes. That is how you do it and no I am not making it up.

    Yes, I know what it is like to make very little money. I made less than the minimum wage for years when I was in the service and as a teen before that I made the minimum wage which was less than it is now.

    There are many sources of reference for abuse of welfare and social programs but I am not going to look for them as they are not germane to the discussion about progressive taxes, which you have yet to explain how they can be good.

    I know what socialism is and I also know that it is wrong to make people pay more in taxes to pay for other people. A flat tax rate works well. Maryland has taken in more money than surrounding states with progressive taxes but has spent far more than it should.

    I just don’t believe that we all have a God given right to health insurance, great pay, and every other thing provided for us. There are plenty of programs for people and if they would get off the liberal teat then they might get a leg up.

    Change SS and make it private, allow more to be put away in savings and stop taxing people who make more at greater rates. A formula for strength and to allow people to become well off.

    The point is, most people don’t make the minimum wage. Also, government should not decide the wage, the business should. When a market is allowed to run freely it runs better. People can negotiate their salary and businesses will have to pay to get employees.

    You are entitled to your opinion but your points, as good as they might be, have nothing to do with a progressive tax and how it is unfair.

  • Doug Hunter

    I’m close to a couple of industries with real manual labor. Even completely unskilled workers make at least $10 to start (and I live in a low cost state), that’s the market minimum. Now there are some jobs like gas station and checkout clerk that pay less. These jobs are so simplistic and stupid that customers with zero training can do a better job themselves, hence the advent of self checkout and self service pumps.

    I’m sorry, it would take a ridiculous amount of standing in the AC, chatting with your friends, and slowly sliding my groceries across a counter to ever barter your way into the thousands of hours of harsh physical labor it takes to gather the materials, ship them to site, and construct a new home. Socialists think that somehow they can switch the numbers around and get more with less, they think they can beat the market. They oddly believe that everybody can have advanced, technical, labor requiring products even if they themselves never contributed any real labor or intellectual good themselves.

  • Cindy D


    “Your link to MS tax info is from a group that provided its own numbers.”

    CTJ does not provide its own numbers. It does provide analysis. .The man providing the analysis, Robert McIntyre, is one of the three providers of such analysis in the country. It is used by members of Congress in their arguments. It is also respected by his opponents. Here is a quote from the New York Times about Mr. McIntyre’s analysis:

    “Even those who oppose his philosophy respect his calculations. ‘His work is very professional,’ said Bruce Bartlett, a tax official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.”

    “Yes, you can offset your own taxes by making charitable contributions. When you itemize your deductions you get to take the charity off your taxes. That is how you do it and no I am not making it up.”

    But, you ARE making it up. And apparently, even when challenged, you don’t get any facts, you just pour out more of your ASSUMPTIONS. Of course you can deduct charitable donations. But, you may wish to check with the IRS before you have your corporation deduct 100% of its taxable income for the year. Corporations are limited to deducting 5% of their taxable income. I am not even going to waste my time giving you a reference. Instead of just making things up, go look it up yourself.

    “I made less than the minimum wage for years when I was in the service…”

    And did you rent an apartment when you were in the service? Pay your electric bill? Buy groceries? Pay your own medical and dental bills (many minimum wage and other low paying jobs do not have benefits)? Or was your room and board and medical and dental care care provided to you in addition to your wage?

    “There are many sources of reference for abuse of welfare and social programs but I am not going to look for them as they are not germane to the discussion about progressive taxes,…”

    Then why do you make it a point in your article. Did you forget that I am simply arguing a point you yourself made? By the way, on examining figures for welfare, you may be shocked to find that your crack mom theory has some flaws. Your assertion, ” I am not going to look for them.” is fairly telling. You already made them a point in your article. How can it be that you didn’t look for them already?

    “…which you have yet to explain how they [progressive taxes] can be good.”

    I presented information and references demonstrating that all income quintiles grow wealth about equally under a progressive tax structure. I also showed that the poor begin to escalate in loss of wealth over time as the rich pay less while the wealthiest continue to gain wealth. Can you tell where this continuum leads eventually?

    That is what is really unfair. Of Course, if I pretend it is just a bunch of crack moms and freeloaders who suffer, it makes this easy to dismiss off-handedly.

    “Tax progressivity was highest in the decades after World War II, when the rich were taxed a stratospheric 88 percent for nearly two decades. This was also an era in which the U.S. economy was a juggernaut, and the American Dream was indisputably alive and well. Because of this, most economists do not believe that high tax rates on the rich are bad for the economy.”

    Okay, I am done arguing. What is clear to me is that you don’t examine or acknowledge your opponent’s information. But, how can you be expected to. After all, you don’t use facts or examine information as a basis for your own points. You claim knowledge and it is clear you don’t have that knowledge. You have no idea, for example, what Socialism is based on your own usage.

    Sure you may skim over some material to prop up your bias, but that seems to be the extent of it. You have an opinion. It seems to be based nearly completely on bias. Multiply you by hundreds of thousands of people and it is fairly easy to see where the real unfairness stems from.

    Even Archie Bunker can have an opinion. This is a waste of time.

  • Big Dog

    My apologies about the use their own numbers. I misread something and had to go back and look again.

    As far as I remember, this piece was labeled OPINION and that is what I wrote. I did not claim all people on welfare were crack addicts, those are the ones who should be working and not collecting welfare. Of course, there are people who need help but there are many who abuse the system. I don’t have to cite references, I have seen it on a daily basis on my job in health care.

    We are talking individual wage earners and those who make the most pay the most and use the least. The lower quintiles do not pay more nor do they bear more of the burden since many of the tax breaks help them and they receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. This is a fact and substantiated in the link I provided in the piece.

    The US is better off when taxes are flat and all people pay the same RATE. If the rich pay more then they should receive more votes in elections like stock holders get. This is fair since taxes are our stock in America, we can do as Neil Boortz has suggested and be awarded a number of votes based on how much we pay in taxes. Every person gets one vote and then more (up to 4) depending on how much is paid in taxes.

    After all, if the rich have to support the country they should have the biggest say on how it is run.

    As for corporate welfare, blame your politicians (all of them from every party). businesses do not pass their own exemptions, members of Congress help them out for campaign donations. Both parties are guilty and I don’t blame the companies for asking. Just like I don’t blame a 25 million dollar a year baseball player for the price of tickets. I blame the idiot who paid him all that money.

    It is easy to bash companies and the rich but it is unfair and un-American to make people pay more than their FAIR share. If we tried to make poor people clean streets for the money they get in welfare there would be an outcry on how unfair it is.

    Regardless of wealth, everyone should be treated fairly. If you have trouble seeing that then you are part of the problem.

    I don’t ask for special treatment for the rich, just fairness (and I am no where near rich).

  • Cindy D

    Wealthiest Americans Benefit Most From Bush Borrow-and-Spend Policies

    The benefits and burdens of the Bush fiscal policies will not be felt equally by all. Because the benefits of the Bush tax cuts have gone primarily to the wealthiest one percent of Americans, this small group still comes out ahead even after the added debt burden is factored in. But the other 99 percent of American families are net losers from the Bush administration’s fiscal policies–leaving the vast majority to pick up the tab for a redistribution of income towards the wealthiest few.

    For the wealthiest one percent of Americans, who have an average 2006 income of $1,272,000, the tax breaks outweigh the added debt burden accumulated from 2001 through 2006 by an average of $30,352 per family member. They have received an average tax break of $84,482 per family member, which exceeds their added debt burden of $54,130 per person by $30,352.

    In contrast, the added debt burden accumulated from 2001 through 2006 outweighs the tax breaks for the other 99 percent of U.S. residents by an average of $7,166 per person. They have received a tax break of $2,616, but their added debt burden is $9,782 per person.

    Full article quoted above is available at URL.

  • Big Dog

    I guess it depends upon who you believe:

    Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income house­holds pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.

    In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

    Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmak­ers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group’s col­lective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers low­ered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax “refunds” to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

    Heritage Foundation

    And then there is this

  • Nancy

    Thank you for speaking for all those of us who actually work for a living, instead of living off the labor of others, like the rich do. You said it better than I ever could.

  • Cindy D

    This is all I have to say about Town Hall: “The Town Hall Web site, [is] a project of The Heritage Foundation…” (

    “The Heritage Foundation will continue to be a key element in the phalanx of rightist groups with an agenda of austerity for the poor, hostility to minorities and women, upward distribution of wealth for the rich, economic domination of the Third World, with repression and bloodletting for those who rebel.”
    – Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, 1991

    From ABC News: Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming – “The UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] report, however, calls the financial connections between ExxonMobil and a number of organizations — including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center– part of an effort to obscure the scientific evidence on global warming.”

    From Think Tank Fires Fellow For Criticizing Bush “…Chris Preble of the Cato Institute explains: ‘At Heritage, anything that smacks of criticism of Bush will not be tolerated.’ “

    People For The American Way on The Heritage Foundation:

    The Heritage Foundation “…takes credit for much of President Bush’s policy, both domestic and foreign, referring to Bush’s policies as ‘straight out of the Heritage play book’.”

    “Heritage supports faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, ban on abortion, overturning affirmative action programs.”

    Right Web International Relations Center on The Heritage Foundation:

    “The foundation in its own literature claims to be ‘a nonpartisan [my emphasis], tax-exempt policy research institute dedicated to the principles of free competitive enterprise, limited government, individual liberty, and a strong national defense.’… Its goal is to produce the conservative ideas that would mold society and government in the United States….”

    “The New Republic said that the Heritage Foundation was ‘the most important think tank in the nation’s capital’ but went on to credit the ‘packaging and presentation’ rather than the intellectual quality of the work…. Burton Pines, Senior Vice President says of Heritage ‘We’re not here to be some kind of PH. D committee giving equal time… . Our role is to provide conservative public policy workers with arguments to bolster our side.’ ”

    “…. Alan Crawford in Thunder on the Right said of Heritage, ‘It is unusual for a research institution to have a ‘staff ideology. ‘… [The] founder’s real interest… appears to be less with balanced public policy research and more with the provision of support for New Right opinions.’ ” on The Heritage Foundation:

    The Heritage Foundation, “has hired dozens of relatively inexperienced policy analysts who are largely told what to write and how to write it…. In this way, Heritage has been able to run with current events and issues, feeding ideas to Congressional sympathizers while exerting constant pressure on more liberal lawmakers via lobbying and media manipulation.”

    Among other Heritage efforts have been the publications “Beware of the Union Label,” “The Case for Plant Closures,” “Upsetting the Balance of U.S. Labor Law: The Striker Replacement Bill” and “In Praise of Corporate Radiers: Junking Three Fallacies About Hostile Takeovers.”

    Heritage Foundation Capitalizes on Katrina: “Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, suspend environmental regulations including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, suspend prevailing wage labor laws, promote vouchers and school choice, repeal the estate tax and copiously fund faith-based organizations. These are just some of the recommendations a trio of hearty Heritage Foundation senior management officials are making to best facilitate the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.”

    Regarding the article in your Heritage link, Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts by Brian M. Riedl, here is some interesting reading:


    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ( has a well-written article entitled, TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES and another entitled, BUSH “GROWTH PLAN” WOULD WORSEN STATE BUDGET CRISES

    Hrmm, I wonder if the federal tax cuts affected Maryland…

    “Some of the finest conservatives in America today do their work in The Heritage Foundation. For those of you new to all this, The Heritage Foundation is America’s leading conservative think tank.”
    – Rush Limbaugh, November 10, 2000.

    Big Dog: “I guess it depends upon who you believe…”

    I guess it does.

    Bill Maher Video – Regarding Heritage Foundation and similar partisan “think tanks”: “They’ve been wrong so often, I’m surprised they’re not my broker.”

  • Cindy D

    Here is a link to, TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES, which I should have provided in my comment above.

    Also the Maher video link I supplied isn’t working for me. The video can be accessed at my URL.

  • Big Dog

    And they are different from a lefty think tank in what way? They all have positions to push and it just depends upon what you beliefs are. Just like having a report prepared by a Democratic staff. I guess nothing will tilt left there.

    Tax cuts did not hurt Maryland, politicians in Annapolis requiring massive spending programs with no funding source. Hell, this state, which is TINY, has higher tax rates than its much larger neighbors and about twice as many state workers as PA. MD Has a wealthy tax base in some of the counties surrounding DC and can make and keep money if the Democratically controlled legislature would stop spending money like there is no tomorrow.

    The CBPP is dedicated to social programs. Those are prominently displayed. Are they a lefty think tank?

    You can only suck so much juice out of an orange. The government has bled us dry with unnecessary programs and departments that are not allowed under the Constitution. They continue to spend and then tax us to make up shortfalls.

    We fought a revolution over this once.

  • Cindy D

    Big Dog,

    They are different in all the ways I posted. Why do you think I posted all those things?

    Here are some quotes from the CBPP article I posted above (see the link in comment #13) entitled: TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES.

    “Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.”

    “The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves had already been rejected by the Administration’s own leading economists. Edward Lazear, the current chair of President’s Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has stated, ‘I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.’ N. Gregory Mankiw, President’s Bush’s former CEA chair and a well-known Harvard economics professor, has written that there is ‘no credible evidence’ that ‘tax revenues… rise in the face of lower tax rates.’ Mankiw compared an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves to a ‘snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.'”

    I wonder why some of Bush’s own top economists contradict the views shared by both Bush and Brian M. Riedl (the author of your article)?

    “We fought a revolution over this once.”

    Yes, indeed we did. It was about taxation without representation. I say the wealthy have been adequately represented. They can buy their representation and they do. It is time some representation was given to the other 90% of the population.

    Well Big Dog, since you aren’t rich, you may want to go home, put your feet up, crack open a Coors Light, turn on Rush Limbaugh, and hope that your pension doesn’t dissolve in a corporate shut down after you have put in your 30-40 years.

    Bill Maher – Speaking about The Heritage Foundation and similar partisan “think tanks”: “They’ve been wrong so often, I’m surprised they’re not my broker.” (video available at my URL)

  • Big Dog

    And yet, many economists believe that tax cuts help the economy. Walter Williams believes so but he does not like them because he believes that the poor should pay taxes commensurate with their level of income. He also said, and I agree, that each person should get one vote in a national election and then one more vote for each 10k in taxes paid. People who pay the most in the country should have the most say.

    Unfortunately, too many who pay no taxes get to vote on how tax money is spent.

    I don’t drink, I save that money and invest it. People should make wise decisions with their money. Poor people should not have cell phones and 35,000 dollar cars. It is also a good idea not to have kids if you cannot afford them. My pension is one that I control in stock funds so my company can not touch it. The same thing they should do with SS so that people will be well off when they retire and not beholden to the government.

    The Reagan tax cuts stimulated the economy, the Bush tax cuts did the same and revenue to the treasury has increased. The Clinton economy started south when they raised taxes. Get Congress to stop wasting money (you know, the PORK thing) and we would be in the black.

  • Cindy D

    “Unfortunately, too many who pay no taxes get to vote on how tax money is spent.”

    Like Microsoft, et al, my point exactly.

    So, who’s going to pay for the deficit? Should we base who pays for it on who got the biggest tax cuts?

    Oh, by the way, I was just making a joke in an obscure reference about the Coors Light. Coors provided the original funding for The Heritage Foundation.

    Bill Maher – Speaking about The Heritage Foundation and similar partisan “think tanks”: “They’ve been wrong so often, I’m surprised they’re not my broker.” (video available at my URL)

  • Big Dog

    I thought I caught the Coors reference but it was obscure.

    Microsoft is not a person. Corporations do not vote, their owners do. How much money did Gates pay in taxes? He would have a lot of votes.

    The deficit exists because we spend money on things that are not authorized by the Constitution and on BS projects called PORK. Jack Murtha just put in a million dollar pork and no one can find the organization that he earmarked it for. Despite the possibility that it does not exist, Congress passed it. We should not be paying for the transit system in Illinois, the planetarium at some college or for other things that are not authorized.

    We pay more in SS each month than needed and Congress spends the left overs. We take in a fortune in payroll and corporate taxes each month (or quarter depending) and Congress finds ways to spend it. Obama put in nearly 400 million dollars in PORK. He is one guy out of 535 so figure how much they waste.

    There would be no deficit if there was fiscal responsibility. A Congressman will spend a million dollars for a 20,000 dollar campaign donation. In Congress they call it progress. In my world it is a poor investment.

  • Clavos

    I should give Bill Maher the name of my broker, who’s building my nest egg very nicely for me.

    Naah. Maher’s an asshole; let him go broke.

  • Cindy D

    Well now, your not considering all those votes our representatives make for corporations. After all, if our representatives are continually casting votes for corporate interests I think those votes should count as votes more than one popular vote per person in a candidate election.

    I remember when we had a budget surplus not too long ago. You think it was from a cut back in pork barrel spending?

    I can’t begin to express my rancor at wasteful government spending. It is one thing we agree on. Albeit from different perspectives. It is one of the reasons I despise corporate welfare. I could probably fill up as much space as I have already used. But, I will refrain and go to bed. Good Night.

    Bill Maher – Speaking about The Heritage Foundation and similar partisan “think tanks”: “They’ve been wrong so often, I’m surprised they’re not my broker.” (video available at my URL)

  • Big Dog

    We might agree to disagree on many things but we both want what is good for this country, though we have different ideas about how to get there. I am all for open debate and differing opinions and adults can discuss these differences with civility.

    I remember a budget surplus on paper, not one that actually existed in real dollars on hand. Congress is unique in that if they cut a million dollar program they say they added a million dollars to the coffers when all they did was not spend it. I also remember that John Kennedy cut taxes and we had a great economy with increased revenue, Reagan cut taxes, same result and the Bush tax cuts have given us the same.

    The fact that Congress spends money they should not and that they buy votes is a different issue. I believe we should votes every incumbent out of office in the next election and start fresh. This is the message we need to send.

  • Big Dog

    …That should be I remember reading about Kennedy’s tax cuts. I was too young to remember it when it happened…

  • Nancy

    I would go one further, BD, & hang every single one for treason for embezzling from the US. Then hang up the corpses on the trees on the mall & leave them there as a warning to future congressmaggots.

  • Big Dog

    Nancy, I can agree with that…

  • Cindy D

    I third the motion!

  • Ian

    First, excerpts from . . .

    –(Fair Use excerpts from)–

    Where is the outrage over sky-high taxes, regulatory costs?
    by Steve Higgins
    7/15/07 – New Haven (CT) Register

    “Reports last week from two nonprofit groups should serve as a wake-up call to Americans to start agitating for tax reform . . .

    “On Monday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reported that the cost to consumers of complying with federal regulations exceeded $1 trillion in 2006 . . . almost 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It’s nearly half the amount of government spending.

    “Even more worrisome, the cost of complying with these multitudinous regulations exceeds the amount of individual income tax paid in 2006, about $998 billion, as well as corporate incomes taxes of $277 billion.

    “According to the Washington, DC-based advocacy group [ Americans for Tax Reform ], the average American had to work through July 11 this year just to pay all federal, state and local taxes, as well as regulatory costs including workers’ compensation and unemployment benefits.

    “Congress should take one of two paths: Either cut tax rates and government spending drastically, or adopt the FairTax, an innovative proposal that would involve abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and its income tax and replacing it with a simple national sales tax.”

    –(End excerpts)–

    . . . The U.S. income tax system and the U.S. economy are inter-related, and are in DIRE trouble. If we, the citizens of these United States, do not act aggressively to spread the FairTax plan with family, friends and associates – our “nest eggs” stand to be devastated through a coming economic meltdown (Summary with podcast: “Laurence J. Kotlikoff (*) on Long-Term Fiscal Problems in the U.S.”).

    Politicians are putting demogoguery and pandering above responsible governing – and they’re able to do it because Americans do NOT understand – at the “get go” – politicians’ / bankers’ hunger for ever-increasing shares of the working person’s bi-weekly paycheck; Americans do NOT understand the totality of taxes they pay. The FairTax shines the “light of day” on this, putting citizens back in charge to forcefully demand spending reductons.

    YOU AND I MUST ACT to mobilize public opinion, and get the FairTax enacted, because the signs point to a probable devaluation of the dollar (reissuance of an “Amero” ? – under a U.S.-sovereignty-busting North American Union?).

    [ NOTE: Does this help clarify your understanding of what’s going on globally? a) Bush’s persistence on rewarding illegal immigration? b) the North American Highway now under construction in Texas (to stream cheap labor into the covertly-planned North American Union marketplace designed to compete with 21st-century China market? c) the gradual increase in value of the Chinese yuan by China corresponding to China’s economic growth? (This will result in the dumping of dollar-denominated debt as its manufacturing economy grows stronger – which guarantees devaluing and ushering-in of the Amero.) ]

    Keep in mind, this NAU strategy – supported by the “super-rich” (member-owners of the Fed) – together with their politician buddies who want NOTHING to do with FairTax – runs contrary to simply making the U.S. a “tax free zone” for business under the FairTax. Politicians and bankers lose power when the U.S. is returned to a “savings-driven economy” from a “debt/interest-driven” economy).

    Powerful “elites,” members of political and monied-interest “clubs” reaching into the halls of power in Washington, depend on keeping you and me uninformed of their plans. It is up to YOU and ME to ACT – and not live in a state of denial – based on what we now know is clearly happening to our financial futures.