Thursday March 15, 2007

There’s a plan floating around to swap property taxes for an increase in sales tax. This amounts to a regressive tax — taking money from the poor to give to the rich, because the poor use a higher percentage of their money to purchase stuff and are less likely to own property. Here’s a list of how much the plan would save a few different lobbyists.

Tags: ,

 

comments powered by Disqus
  1. Jonathan    Thu Mar 15, 03:47 PM #  

    Cut property taxes. Cut sales taxes. Cut spending.



  2. Jessica    Thu Mar 15, 04:39 PM #  

    Personally, I do not agree with the above comment. I am single female and recently saved money to purchase my own home, and I believe the property tax would help significantly! Its not about the principle of “taking money from the poor to give to the rich”, it is giving a break to all home owners, no matter if they own a condo or a mansion. Also, the comment “the poor use a higher percentage of their money to purchase stuff and are less likely to own property”, that is how they rank their priories, I would prefer to save money & OWN a home rather than buy new sneakers every week!



  3. Marie Antoinette    Thu Mar 15, 04:49 PM #  

    Jessica, that’s exactly what I said! Let them eat cake!



  4. alesh    Thu Mar 15, 08:01 PM #  

    Manola~ exactly — thank you. Jessica’s comment amounts to “they should have gone to college so they could get decent jobs and not be poor. they made the wrong choices so fuck ‘em!”

    Jonathan~ I’m with you. Furthermore, you have my sincere gratitude for not breaking out the “rich people already pay more then their fair share” line!



  5. Biscayne Bystander    Thu Mar 15, 10:00 PM #  

    Rubio’s plan is the first to offer balance between rich and poor. His is also the only one that would extend benefits to the homeowners, commercial owners, and renters, all while the rich do not benefit as much as the hard working middle class.

    The herald offers a great example.
    It doesn’t treat rich and poor alike. Under the Republican plan, for example, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh would get a $424,423 tax break on his Palm Beach mansion. Under the Democratic plan, Limbaugh’s tax break would be closer to $130,000.



  6. Jonathan    Fri Mar 16, 12:20 AM #  

    Why shouldn’t someone like Limbaugh get the same proportional break as everyone else? He’s paying much more in taxes than most people are, and certainly paying a lot more in taxes than he gets in services.

    (Sorry to let you down, Alesh.)



  7. Biscayne Bystander    Fri Mar 16, 05:58 AM #  

    Jonathan: You’re right. Rush should be treated like everyone else. Wait…if we did that, he’d be in jail over his abuse and addiction to OxyContin. At least then he could recoup some of the services he hasn’t received from paying taxes.

    Jessica: There’s naive and then there’s stupid. Personally I believe you are the latter. The stuff which you liberally take out of context is referring items of necessity such as food, rent, utilities, transportation, and if they’re lucky – insurance.

    Listening to the two of you really makes me worried about the state of our future.



  8. alesh    Fri Mar 16, 06:51 AM #  

    On a related note: Ben Stein’s What’s new and hot and exciting (or terrible) in the world of money today.



  9. Jonathan    Fri Mar 16, 09:11 AM #  

    BB: Do you think the purpose of the tax code is to punish rich people?

    Alesh: Ben Stein is wrong about wages, wrong about financial economics and wrong about why some people make more money than others. Aside from that it’s a great column.



  10. Biscayne Bystander    Fri Mar 16, 07:51 PM #  

    Absolutely not. The rich invest into companies, create jobs, & generally move the economy. However rich or poor, we all agree the current tax system is archaic. I would recommend everyone read: The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS (Paperback).

    However we cannot escape the social implications from the widening wealth gap in America. The wealthy enjoy their riches as a result of the same society being affected by this wealth gap.

    The problem I have is with poor legislation and politicians with their hands out. Corporate greed should be checked. Government deregulations have produced the exact opposite of what was promised. The promoise was that by letting companies compete in the open market, it would drive prices down as eacg company’s compete for consumers, all while improving services.

    The exact opposite has happend. Enron wouldn’t have occured with government regulation. We wouldn’t be paying sky high engery bills and the oil companies wouldn’t be raking in windfall profits. Look what Halliburton just did! They are looking to incorporate in Saudi Arabia to act as a tax shelter! This is our Vice President’s company, the no-bid winner of Iraq service contracts, and the Fuck Wads that have been over billing and under producing for the American tax payers.

    Something is wrong when 3 percent of our population own over 80 percent of the wealth. You start getting $1,000 pizza’s and golden ice cream cones.