Comments on “Blogules/Political Footballs, 7 January 2004”

1. As one of the more liberal BTN viewers, and as a member of the so-called fiscal “minority”, I find the tax circus amusing personally. First, dubya gives me a huge break on fed taxes (read, $50 more a month…umm), plus about $500 more on my return this year, then Warner plans to take that back for the state of VA. So in the end, I come out about even.

   But more to the point, Warner needs to find money somewhere. (Lest we forget the woes of Gillmore and the Car tax debacle) About the only thing Doug Wilder and George Allen had in common (as I shudder in comparison) was they operated the state with a balanced/surplused budget. Warner is trying to get us back there and honestly, as a high-income NOVA snob, I feel like I should pay a bigger proportion than say someone from Southwest VA. I think the system works because $50/month doesn’t amount to much more than a trip to the movies with my fiance. Is it that unfair to ask the more affluent members of society to give back a little more?

   capt.taco on January 8th, 2004 at 8:43 am

2. I’m not exactly a flat-taxer here myself, Rob (although that viewpoint is somewhat attractive). But do you think that creating a more-or-less permanent political division between a minority that pays taxes and a majority that receives that redistributed income is good for the country? We’re already awfully close to that.

   I have two major terminology problems with modern tax policy. First, the “refundable tax credit” is one of the biggest political jokes around: they’ll give an taxpayer back his/her money if he/she paid it, but if he/she didn’t, then said taxpayer gets someone else’s money. Hardly a credit then — more like a handout. I also have major concerns about the use of “working families” as a political term for lower-to-middle-income individuals, because it asserts by implication that people who earn more really don’t work for their income, it’s just handed to them. More politics of class warfare.

   If I were feeling philosophical, I could also theorize about whether charity really carries the same moral weight if it’s mandated by the state as opposed to given freely. But I’d probably better leave the philosophy to Andrew Hardin, if he’s still reading (that’s your cue, Andrew… ;-).

   Josh on January 8th, 2004 at 11:22 am

3. So, good to have you back. I do have plenty of Navy homer commentary on the Houston Bowl, Texas Tech’s football team, BJ Symons, and the slanted coverage in Houston’s local newspaper, but have been incredibly lazy about putting it down.

   Matt on January 8th, 2004 at 2:53 pm

4. I don’t really see this “majority that doesn’t pay taxes” that you refer to. Even if a person gets a net refund for their income taxes, they would still have to pay sales tax, social security, medicare, property tax, etc throughout the year. It’s not like low-income families are getting a free ride. For example, see this chart of effective federal tax rates.

   As for creating a political division between rich and poor, that’s pretty much unavoidable. Rich people and poor people are going to inherently have differing political interests, thus creating a divide. I don’t think a restructuring of tax rates is going to change that.

   Alex Kalita on January 8th, 2004 at 5:09 pm

5. I think Alex just stamped “0WN3D” across my forehead. ;-)

   Seriously, though, the no-tax majority isn’t here yet, and I hope it won’t ever happen. I agree that you’re going to have some rich/poor political divide on economic issues no matter what, and I do support some progressive taxation. I just really dislike the rhetoric of class warfare being used by the Democratic party.

   As Rob said, the money has to come from somewhere. Honestly, I’d prefer it come entirely from a sales tax hike, and the 1% jump that Warner has proposed would probably get us close if he didn’t mess with anything else (cutting the food tax, the adjustments to income taxes, etc.). But he felt he had to make a bigger splash, and I don’t like the way he did that part of it.

   Oh yeah, and Matt: lazy about putting things down? Welcome to my world of blog. ;-) If you feel like scribbling within the next week or so, I’ll post it, otherwise let’s just let it slide.

   Josh on January 8th, 2004 at 5:53 pm

6. Well, aren’t I the instigator? See Josh, without you and your posts, who else would bring about these lovely discussions. (You’re one of the few conservatives I know that can eloquently articulate their opinions) Keep them coming.

   As far as the sales tax hike, I actually agree with you there Josh, I’d rather see that hike than a jump in an income tax. However, I fail to see how that would not differentiate the “working family” (I hate that term too) from the richer, upper class in terms of tax burden. Rich people buy more expensive things and buy more of them. (see my GW purchase for this month)

   I’m also curious for a link about these refundable tax credits. The only one I know of is the tax credit you get for owning a hybrid gas vehicle. (in fact, this very credit will help fund my honeymoon in August) However, this is not so much a handout, as it is an incentive for buying a vehicle which consumes less gas and creates less pollution.

   Lastly, a political term I’m not too fond of is “redistributed income.” Federal/State/Local taxes are not just avenues for supplementing the income of less fortunate individuals/familys. However, the welfare program has been reduced so much, we pay more for 2 days (~2 billion USD) of the Iraqi war than we do for a year of public welfare. It’s somewhat ironic that 1 in 5 American veterans are on welfare.

   I too hate that taxes have become so political, but its on both sides. Dubya looked out for my kind this past year and thanks to him, I’ll be the proud owner of a Cross ATX Pen/Pencil Set in Azurite Blue this month. (I saved my dec. $50) So perhaps I should be happy… until I have a child that wants a real education from a public school.

   Rob Rhyne on January 9th, 2004 at 4:25 pm

7. The sales tax applies evenly to everyone — if you don’t like it, you buy less expensive stuff (or you shop on the Internet, although that loophole is bound to be closed sooner or later). That’s why I like it — there’s no class division at the check-out counter, so to speak.

   The refundable tax credit concept is more common at the federal level than with the states, and most of them are proposals rather than law at this stage. It’s not necessarily tax credits themselves I have a problem with, it’s the so-called “refundable” type (i.e. if you didn’t pay it in the first place, we give it out to you out of someone else’s pocket instead of your own) — “refundable” and “unilateral” were both in the running for Most Poorly-Defined Political Term of 2003. I don’t know if the clean-vehicle credit is “refundable” or not, although I should note that had the new Prius replaced its butt-ugly predecessor in late 2002 instead of ‘03, I might have researched that topic a bit more heavily instead of going diesel. On a superficial level, though, I can support tax-based incentivization of certain actions deemed to be in the public interest, like purchasing an alt-fuel/hybrid vehicle.

   OK, enough blog-monkeying for me, time to head northwest. ;-)

   Josh on January 9th, 2004 at 5:50 pm

8. I missed my cue, I guess. Only only drop by occasionally when the mood strikes. (I have 4 daily reads: USS Clueless, Smallest Minority, Kim du Toit, Dissecting Leftism. That can take a lot of time, especially the first one.)

   As for charity being mandated by the state? By definition, that isn’t charity. Charity must be given freely. I won’t take the bandwidth to establish that fact, but it should be obvious. Let me know if you would like me to do so…

   However, though it is established not to be charity, does that necessarily make it immoral? No, not necessarily. Just because something is done by force does not make it immoral.

   Anyway, enough undefended statements. And, more importantly, enough bandwith. ;-) -Andrew

   Ach on January 13th, 2004 at 9:36 pm

9. Eh, not a problem at all — glad to have you reading when you do wander in. If you read Kim du Toit regularly, the stuff here is pretty vanilla by comparison, and of course I’m nowhere close to Steven den Beste in analytical talent. (Although I did get linked by den Beste once… in the great tradition of Slashdottings and Instalanches, does that mean I got den Bestialized? ;-)

   It’s just interesting to me that in every regional breakdown I’ve seen of tax-funded social programs versus charitable giving, the people in high-tax, large-program regions like the Northeast and Pacific Coast — usually more affluent than residents of low-tax areas like the Deep South — give far less to charity than do those in those low-tax, limited-social-program areas. It’s almost as if they are subcontracting charity out to the State — which, as you said, means it’s not charity at all.

   Josh on January 14th, 2004 at 12:38 am

10. Of course, those places also tend to be far more liberal… And those librals do love big gov’t. And it seems that if they can eliminate their responsibility by passing it to the government, they will. Of course, only problem is that by passing on their own responsibility, they are doing the rest of us a major disservice (I accept the responsibility to feed, clothe, defend, and otherwise see to my own needs, tyvm).

    Ach on January 15th, 2004 at 10:45 am