Friday, May 8, 2009
Legislature / Woods Tax Modernization: Can a New Slogan Pass the Income Tax?
Posted by Jeff Woods on Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM
"Is it any wonder we're in this mess? The major portion of our state budget comes from the sales tax levied on products that people buy. We're in a recession, and in a recession people stop buying. No buying means no sales tax. A shortfall in taxes means cuts in important public structures from higher education to community health. We're at the end of our rope. ... To get out of this deepening recession, restore funds to education and other vital services, and gear up for an emergence into a decent economy, we need tax modernization."All this is true, but hardly anyone cares. These Tennesseans for Fair Taxation appear at the Legislative Plaza periodically, handing out press releases and pulling little publicity stunts. No one even looks at them. It's like they don't exist. Legislators are too busy debating guns and abortion and home schooling to worry about funding schools and other important services. Tax reformers want to eliminate the food tax, lower sales taxes on everything else by 3 percent, and enact a graduated income tax. They've wanted to do this for at least 40 years. They're calling it tax modernization now rather than tax reform. The new slogan isn't helping.
Comments (15)
Showing 1-15 of 15
People aren't buying because they have no income. I don't see how an income tax would perform any better than a sales tax.
Also, calling "tax reform" "tax modernization" is an old trick. Winfield Dunn and Ned McWherter both did it.
like
dislike
California has a state income tax and that state is an abject fiscal failure.
The claim that an income tax system is better is false.
Case closed.
Oh and Texas doesn't have a state income tax and it's in better fiscal shape that most of the other states in the country.
Case still closed.
A progressive income tax would be a huge step forward for the state of Tennessee. It would provide the income necessary to sufficiently fund our state government - while reducing our redonkulously high food & sales taxes.
Meanwhile the tax burden placed on most Tennesseans would be reduced. How the middle class in this state have allowed the elites to pull the wool over their eyes so thoroughly is beyond comprehension.
The people who have a lot of the money aren't the ones who are losing their jobs, so they are still buying at the same rate. But since they don't buy proportionately more based on their incomes, the loss of jobs and the cut backs by our middle and lower income taxpayers are hurting us in Tennessee.
California has an income tax AND a high sales tax. And they spend a whole whole whole lot more money on everything related to state government and services compared to Tennessee. They are in fiscal trouble because they have done this for years and years, not because an income tax system is flawed.
Wanta live in Texas, the third world state of states? Where the rest of the millionaires go who don't want to have to pay income tax. Just watched a clip about a small town in Texas where they were stopping out of state cars and extorting their money. The DA of the county seems very involved. Law and order! Tennessee is trying, striving, and soon may reach the right wing heights of Texas, especially now that we have the "guns in every-freakin'where you wanta take them" bill coming down. Texas will be SO jealous.
But the problem with an income tax is that call it what you may, no matter how poor a person is, how little income tax he has ever had to pay in in his life, or would ever have to pay in with a state income tax, you can get this person to say, "I'm against new taxes! Yeah, a poor man ain't got a chance! No new taxes! Yeah, I'll blow my horn for that!" It will always be so. I have watched the Brentwoodian big-incomers do right-to-life and no-state-income tax with equal fervor till I'm truly convinced. Jesus doesn't want us to have to pay a state income tax! We need that money to build more big tax free Mega-churches.
That's a pretty simple argument, Gilbert. Just because you have an income tax doesn't mean humans won't screw it up -- see California. And the only places that don't have an income tax but remain relatively solvent are places that can tax to death a natural resources -- see oil -- or tax to death a human resource -- see gambling -- or are so small they don't need much revenue to sustain their governments.
The interesting thing about Tennessee is that it could get by on the cheap when the state was largely rural, unpopulated and poor. Then it used its lack of an income tax to recruit business during the Sunbelt boom.
But now that that boom is in its third decade, Tennessee has all the issues of a more populated, urbanized state. Big cities, suburban sprawl, more industry, more people, etc. And all that costs money. But we're still stuck with this old-fashioned tax system that can't keep up. Which means we're either going to become a Third World country, watch our food tax rise to 15 percent, or enact some kind of income tax.
I think the good Christians in the legislature know this. The trend lines are very scary. But they're doing a very unChristian thing: dumping the problem on their children and grandchildren so they can avoid summoning the political bravery.
I believe St. Peter would call it "candy-assed."
There is something today about Kyle talking the merits of a revenue based tax system on Richard Lawson's news site, www.nashvillechatterclass.com
The thing to do with a sales tax system is get people to come in, buy things, and leave without using any of your services. In other words, pump up tourism or you can be a transport hub . . . like say a state that's within a five hundred or so mile drive of most of the population in a country.
Why would a progressive, personal income tax be an improvement? It's really very simple. Right now the wealthy among us, earning over 100,000 dollars, pay about 4% of their income in state tax. The not-so-wealthy, earning less than 20,000, pay about 11% of their income in state taxes. In other words, for decades the wealthy have not been paying their fair share to fund state services. TFT's tax modernization proposes that they shall!
Kotz, you remind me of one of those true believers in communism. When confronted with the abject failure of the old Soviet Union they would say something like, "well it just wasn't implemented right" or "if only the right kind of people had been in charge it would have worked".
California is by no means the only example of failure.
New York has had both high state and income taxes for years and now it's trying to raise the income tax rate again. The state is an abject failure.
Michigan has a state income tax and it is an abject failure.
New Jersey has a state income tax and it is an abject failure.
No city, state or country has ever taxed it's way to prosperity.
No matter how much revenue any government entity has from whatever source, it will inevitably spend it all and attempt to raise taxes to spend more.
No state that has an income tax is a superior place to live in any way due to any factor created by said income tax compared to any of the states that don't have one.
And don't give me that sacntimonious crap about passing burdens to "the children". It is government spending that creates burdens in the first place - not the absence of taxes.
The social welfare and entitlement programs that you liberals love so much is what is creating massive burdens on "the children" and everybody else too. The unfunded liabilty for Medicare alone is in excess of $74 TRILLION. There are massive unfunded liabilties for state Medicaid programs as well. In fact a significant chunk of Obama's so -called "stimulus" program is going directly to state governments to prop up their failing Medicaid programs. Those programs are flat out unsustainable over the long rum.
As for being "candy-assed" the people who qualify for that category would be all you whiny, crybaby liberals who want the government to be your mommy and daddy and make sure everybody is taken care of.
You want to make as many people as possible dependent on some sort of government handout to create as big an obedient welfare plantation as possible to be a pool of votes to advance electing liberal democrats.
So get YOUR candy-ass in gear, grow up and take responsibilty for yourself. Your personal welfare is your own responsibilty - no one elses.
"Why would a progressive, personal income tax be an improvement? It's really very simple. Right now the wealthy among us, earning over 100,000 dollars, pay about 4% of their income in state tax. The not-so-wealthy, earning less than 20,000, pay about 11% of their income in state taxes. In other words, for decades the wealthy have not been paying their fair share to fund state services."
No, in other words, you "logic" is nothing but socialist bullshit.
When the "poor" go to McDonalds for a Big Mac, they are paying a higher percentage of their income for it than the "rich" as well. But that is irrelevant. They received the same prodcut that the "rich" person did so they are required to pay the same price for it. The same is true for any other product or service purchased in the private sector.
Percentages of income have nothing to do with.
No one's income level is a "service" that has been provided to them by any private sector product or service provider - or the government either.
Fairness in paying for product or service is on a user fee basis. It makes no difference whether the service is being provided by the private sector or government. There is no difference in principle.
And of course what you refer to as "state services" is nothing but a term deliberately designed to obfuscate the economic substance of what is really going on. A lot of what you call "services" are in reality nothing more that transfer payments and redistribution of wealth. For something to qualify as a REAL service, it has be providing something of value to the specific individuals who are paying for it in exchange for their money.
"you "logic" is nothing but socialist bullshit."
Well, I understand what "bullshit" is. But, I'd like to read Mr. Martins definition of "socialist." Does he mean the armed forces of the USA. paid for and controlled by the gov't of the USA? Does he mean the health care policies of the gov't of the USA, that deliver health care, to the citizens of the USA, and incidentally, Tennesseans also, thru Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SCHIP, and other programs? Does he mean the substantial investment by the gov't of the USA, through the states, in education at all levels, from K thru PG? How about the national highway system paid for and maintained by taxes, levied by the gov't of the USA, and by state gov'ts, on the sale of gasoline?
Enough! Mr Martin, and I, and all the millions of our fellow citizens, benefit from the public service structure that is funded by taxes. If we didn't have it, we would be asking for it. Read your history and think of the times when the public structure was inadequate. Do we want to go there again?
Well Pope - socialist is believing that percentages of income have anything to do with "fairness" in paying taxes.
As I said, fairness is paying on a user fee basis. Funny you should mention highways because they are funded that way already - it's called the gas tax. The more you personally use the road, the more gas you burn and the more gas tax you pay. Income levels have nothing to do with it{nor should it) and it has nothing to do with an income tax discussion.
As for you remarks about the military, the government isn't providing me personally with any higher level of military protection that it is providing to all the people who make less money than I do. There is no "fairness" resaon I should be paying any more for that particular government service than anyone else.
As for Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP - those aren't "services" - they are transfer payment welfare programs. The people being charged for them are not the same people getting the "service" And yes - that is indeed socialist.
The TFT people are good folks and a low, progressive state income tax (capped in the state constition) combined with removing the sales tax from food would be good for Tennessee.
But politically, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I guess the TFT'ers feel like they need to keep up the drumbeat though.
