Steven P. BarrettWILL SOMEBODY EXPLAIN THE ABCs OF STATE TAXATION TO LIBERTARIANS? PLEASE?
August 11th 2008 03:32
By Steven Barrett
Okay class, get ready for Barrett's "Responsible State Taxation 101 Class." I'm going to base it on my knowledge of taxation issues in Massachusetts, aka, the "People's Republik of Taxachusetts."
She's not perfect, but she'll make for a nice reliable example of what could happen to a fairly reasonably taxed state if we're not careful. (Just look at Florida ... but not too long. You could become awfully ill in a New York Snowbird's second.) Or look at New Hampshire. On second thought, don't look too long at that state either. It's mean, cheap and nasty, especially if you own a home and pay the highest proportional property taxes and for what?ZILCH. But that's what happens when the Libertarians take control of taxation.
There's a difference between responsible conservative desires to keep public spending down so we don't have to continually raise taxes over and over especially if services haven't improved. I liken it to that like spoken by actor George C. Scott playing George Patton reminding a British General when the Battle of the Bulge broke out that he didn't "want to pay for the same piece of real estate twice."
On the other hand, gutting out a state's ability to raise any funds and leaving the entire public at the kind mercies of the market, well, that's not prudent either. It's not in the free market system's best interests to get involved in providing long- term services for the severly mentally disabled, take over entire public school systems, run entire town fire and police systems. And having served in corrections before, I sure as hell don't ever want to see the private sector operating jails, prisons or supervised release programs (i.e. probation/parole.)
What next? Going back to the days of private armies? Privateering on the high seas?
I'd better stop before I give the Massachusetts Libertarians and their leader Carla Howell any more hairbrained ideas.
She succeeded in putting on this fall's state ballot Question No. 1, a proposal to eliminate the state income tax. Not just a roll back of the infamous Mike Dukakis "surcharge" of 34 years ago. Nope. She wants to pull the plug on the bathtub like Grover Norquist down in Washington, DC advocates. (Oh, he's from MA, too, but he'd never feel the pinch of the pain nearly all of us will feel if this idiotic question is passed.
Imagine students: In order to "save" money, you just cut off forty percent of your income. Does that make any sense? Oh, yeah, that'll "force" you to cut back and "live within your means." In the meantime, how're you going to make up that lost 40 percent of revenue that's going to GUT many cities and towns? And how are they going to raise taxes to make up for the lost state revenues when housing values sink below the manhole covers? And so it goes.
Maybe I will rely on Florida for a moment. Go back to my earlier post about Broward County and pay close attention to what happened to cities like Tamarac, Margate et al in the northwest part of that once growing county, the second most populous in Florida. They went in the tank, and the home mortgage scams weren't the only culprits. Stingy, greedy and shortsightedness when it came to keeping responsible taxes in place are your chief villains down there.
The private sector's major mouthpieces and lobbyists never stop harping about the gloriious things lowering the state's taxes, particularly killing its income tax, will do for the economy. That's pure hogwash. Pure UNCUT hogwash. Just look at Florida, over and over and over.
When the low-almost-no-to-practically- NO-tax gang are constantly serving up scary bogey man stories to keep us at the edge of our seats and worrying "what if" before election day ... with nightmares of lost jobs hovering around inside our heads like banshees, it's best to recall these words in a Bluegrass song "If Wishes Were Horses" written by Lynette Muehlman and sung by Claire Lynch:
You know, the grass is greener on the other side.
Somewhere there's a blu-er sky;
I won't stop runnin' til I'm satisfied,
and if wishes were horses,
I would ride, ride, ride,
yeah, if wishes were horses,
I would ride, ride, ride.
Yeah, the Howells and state's business anti-tax crowd have their wishes alright: to scare us into giving them what they want, or having their rigs packed and gassed up ready to roll down to the Sunbelt, Mexico or the Boston Harbor where ships bound for China are docked and awaiting shipments of factory equpiment. And we're left watching those private jobs "ride, ride, ride" away never to return again.
Back up north. What's Howell's goal? According to one businessman, a successfull developer no less, she wants us to rely on fees. Oh boy. Get ready, pull 'em down, bend over and Nurse Howell will give us the cure for relying on income taxes: Fees.
OUCH. And, yes -- it will hurt like hell.
Let me offer a few clarifying thoughts for the Libertarian Lucys out in Howell-land.
A. States can't print their own money. That went out in 1787.
B. You need a three-legged stool at least to keep things flowing smoothly.
Income tax: sales taxes; property taxes.
C. Put them all together, provided none of them are either too low or two high to ensure a reasonable amount to run the state government's services efficiently, and that should do the trick.
D. Relying on raising fees; lottery tix ("fool's taxes"); casinos; tourism; and a lot of other nickel n' diming gimmicks will only send more people out of the state, which already has enough trouble keeping young and intellectually sharp graduates from its superb public and private universities and colleges.
This isn't responsible taxation policy. This is payback for the legislature dragging its heels on implementing the voters' rollback on the Duke's surcharge. But even if that can't be done without screwing up the state's finances even more, then leave it in till it's really feasible. Paybacks that'll hurt the entire population reek of tribalism. And this time it's the wealthy tribes taking it out on the vast majority of the other tribes who aren't wealthy by a long shot.
Towns like Amherst (run by academic pinheads) treat their overrides like most people treat their personal credit cards. The bills never seem to go down. Other smaller towns like Hadley buy something that might send the bills temporarily over the override limit. But they pay their bills down promplty and keep that overall tax rate a lot lower than their never-learning "more educated, thus intellectual" neighbors.
Take away income taxes and we'll all be looking at PERMANENT OVERRIDES & OUTRAGEOUS PROPERTY TAXES LIKE THE CHEAPSKATES HAVE UP IN NEW HAMPSHIRE --AND FOR WHAT?
ZILCH.
Okay class, get ready for Barrett's "Responsible State Taxation 101 Class." I'm going to base it on my knowledge of taxation issues in Massachusetts, aka, the "People's Republik of Taxachusetts."
MA State House
She's not perfect, but she'll make for a nice reliable example of what could happen to a fairly reasonably taxed state if we're not careful. (Just look at Florida ... but not too long. You could become awfully ill in a New York Snowbird's second.) Or look at New Hampshire. On second thought, don't look too long at that state either. It's mean, cheap and nasty, especially if you own a home and pay the highest proportional property taxes and for what?ZILCH. But that's what happens when the Libertarians take control of taxation.
There's a difference between responsible conservative desires to keep public spending down so we don't have to continually raise taxes over and over especially if services haven't improved. I liken it to that like spoken by actor George C. Scott playing George Patton reminding a British General when the Battle of the Bulge broke out that he didn't "want to pay for the same piece of real estate twice."
On the other hand, gutting out a state's ability to raise any funds and leaving the entire public at the kind mercies of the market, well, that's not prudent either. It's not in the free market system's best interests to get involved in providing long- term services for the severly mentally disabled, take over entire public school systems, run entire town fire and police systems. And having served in corrections before, I sure as hell don't ever want to see the private sector operating jails, prisons or supervised release programs (i.e. probation/parole.)
What next? Going back to the days of private armies? Privateering on the high seas?
I'd better stop before I give the Massachusetts Libertarians and their leader Carla Howell any more hairbrained ideas.
Carla Howell
She succeeded in putting on this fall's state ballot Question No. 1, a proposal to eliminate the state income tax. Not just a roll back of the infamous Mike Dukakis "surcharge" of 34 years ago. Nope. She wants to pull the plug on the bathtub like Grover Norquist down in Washington, DC advocates. (Oh, he's from MA, too, but he'd never feel the pinch of the pain nearly all of us will feel if this idiotic question is passed.
Imagine students: In order to "save" money, you just cut off forty percent of your income. Does that make any sense? Oh, yeah, that'll "force" you to cut back and "live within your means." In the meantime, how're you going to make up that lost 40 percent of revenue that's going to GUT many cities and towns? And how are they going to raise taxes to make up for the lost state revenues when housing values sink below the manhole covers? And so it goes.
Maybe I will rely on Florida for a moment. Go back to my earlier post about Broward County and pay close attention to what happened to cities like Tamarac, Margate et al in the northwest part of that once growing county, the second most populous in Florida. They went in the tank, and the home mortgage scams weren't the only culprits. Stingy, greedy and shortsightedness when it came to keeping responsible taxes in place are your chief villains down there.
The private sector's major mouthpieces and lobbyists never stop harping about the gloriious things lowering the state's taxes, particularly killing its income tax, will do for the economy. That's pure hogwash. Pure UNCUT hogwash. Just look at Florida, over and over and over.
When the low-almost-no-to-practically- NO-tax gang are constantly serving up scary bogey man stories to keep us at the edge of our seats and worrying "what if" before election day ... with nightmares of lost jobs hovering around inside our heads like banshees, it's best to recall these words in a Bluegrass song "If Wishes Were Horses" written by Lynette Muehlman and sung by Claire Lynch:
You know, the grass is greener on the other side.
Somewhere there's a blu-er sky;
I won't stop runnin' til I'm satisfied,
and if wishes were horses,
I would ride, ride, ride,
yeah, if wishes were horses,
I would ride, ride, ride.
Yeah, the Howells and state's business anti-tax crowd have their wishes alright: to scare us into giving them what they want, or having their rigs packed and gassed up ready to roll down to the Sunbelt, Mexico or the Boston Harbor where ships bound for China are docked and awaiting shipments of factory equpiment. And we're left watching those private jobs "ride, ride, ride" away never to return again.
Back up north. What's Howell's goal? According to one businessman, a successfull developer no less, she wants us to rely on fees. Oh boy. Get ready, pull 'em down, bend over and Nurse Howell will give us the cure for relying on income taxes: Fees.
OUCH. And, yes -- it will hurt like hell.
Let me offer a few clarifying thoughts for the Libertarian Lucys out in Howell-land.
A. States can't print their own money. That went out in 1787.
B. You need a three-legged stool at least to keep things flowing smoothly.
Income tax: sales taxes; property taxes.
C. Put them all together, provided none of them are either too low or two high to ensure a reasonable amount to run the state government's services efficiently, and that should do the trick.
D. Relying on raising fees; lottery tix ("fool's taxes"); casinos; tourism; and a lot of other nickel n' diming gimmicks will only send more people out of the state, which already has enough trouble keeping young and intellectually sharp graduates from its superb public and private universities and colleges.
This isn't responsible taxation policy. This is payback for the legislature dragging its heels on implementing the voters' rollback on the Duke's surcharge. But even if that can't be done without screwing up the state's finances even more, then leave it in till it's really feasible. Paybacks that'll hurt the entire population reek of tribalism. And this time it's the wealthy tribes taking it out on the vast majority of the other tribes who aren't wealthy by a long shot.
Towns like Amherst (run by academic pinheads) treat their overrides like most people treat their personal credit cards. The bills never seem to go down. Other smaller towns like Hadley buy something that might send the bills temporarily over the override limit. But they pay their bills down promplty and keep that overall tax rate a lot lower than their never-learning "more educated, thus intellectual" neighbors.
Take away income taxes and we'll all be looking at PERMANENT OVERRIDES & OUTRAGEOUS PROPERTY TAXES LIKE THE CHEAPSKATES HAVE UP IN NEW HAMPSHIRE --AND FOR WHAT?
ZILCH.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Really Long Link
I would welcome your opinion.
Comment by Anonymous
Excellent points and unlike a lot of our younger conservative wannabe big(ger) shots and stars, you're pointing out the "gray matter" that's impossible to ignore when it comes to responsible governance. What amazes me is how easily some people can be convinced or conditioned to think that it's okay if we blow X or Y amount away to some private firm that's just going to rake in profits that won't go back into the general economy for the same services we're paying taxes for now. Privatizing doesn't necessarily translate into getting better services. But, given the right demagouge with a keen eye for schmoozing and blurring truth with only just enough manure to make it not too obviously BSy to the public, enough people can be conned iinto accepting almost anything so long as it's "privately operated and run" because of this "private firms know how to save money, government doesn't" mantra.
Says who?
Jim, your piece about Florida and the attitudes you've come across tears right into this shortsightedness like a laser. For example: While, I'm NOT for towns getting overly nitpicky with zoning, one only has to look at a map of Broward Co.,'s NW area just east of the 'Glades. What a bowl of spaghetti noodles for a map! What does this tell us? The private sector had total control and the people who were lured into buying homes there were at one time to be left on their own to figure out how the state, county and towns would work things out, while in the meantime, nobody was willing to take the time to bother explaining why coordinated zoning was so important.
Guess what happened next? Things began to start falling apart little by little and so did the bond between the public and the governments responsible for creating such a tangled mess of unregulated growth. Attitudes towards public involvement, civil service, and government and elective politics in general slumped. And to be fair to FL, a lot of this happened up here, too, although all the open spaces throughout New England are claimed by a town or city. "Unincorporated land" -- what's that up here? Unheard of. So our planning is different, but our needs aren't so different. We still have to pay the bills.
Having lived in Central Florida, attended college in Miami -Dade and chummed around with friends from Broward, I'm familar with not only the lay of the land, but also the public's perception of public service. I was a state employee, too; working as a probation/parole officer in Orlando. It wasn't a great match, but I have no hard feelings. What I do recall is a growing anti -government sentiment that was starting to gain rapid acceptance around 1980 that wasn't there when I graduated from college in 1974. Call it the California Prop. 13 effect, or effect of MA's Prop. 2.5 -- but Floridians who before weren't all that anti-government before were taking a much harder line and I hate say it, had been fed a lot of bull by shock jocks (long before Rush, and even rougher on government than Rush can be at times.)
Jim, I can't imagine what it must've been like during the past several decades since this edginess towards government and public employees began some 30 years ago. You hit on several key points that people everywhere need to remember, especially candidates for national office, i.e. Congress.
want and need government employees to teach our children, make certain that our food supply is healthy, check on the safety and efficacy of medicines, regulate all sorts of professions and, in general, protect my family from danger. And it's not free. Even Conservatives want a strong military and all of the bells and whistles that go with the weapons used by our troops.
Are there anecdotal stories of government employees being inefficient, wasteful or even crooked? Certainly. But to object to all taxes until all government operations are free from waste and human failings is just an excuse to avoid meeting responsibilities as a citizen to pay for services. It is setting up a straw man to avoid responsibilities. As long as governmental services are provided by humans, human frailties will surface.
A Republican County Commissioner, who I truly like and admire as an honest man, claims that taxes are, by their nature, a burden on the economy and individuals; all taxes are to be reduced, without regard to the consequences. Any deficit will be made up, he says, by “eliminating waste”. When confronted by a request that he identify the specific “waste” to be uncovered and abolished, he resorts to cliché and a vague statement that waste and fraud is “out there’.
Wow, sounds like Victor Hugo's Inspector Javert sits on a county committee. Which is something I'd at least think it's not something you'd like to talk up much if you're thinking of running for higher office from. Talk like that can also bite you in return.
This commissioner's talk about eliminating "waste" is chilling because it creates an atmosphere whereby anybody's job and livelihood could be judged solely on the arbitrary and expedient needs of an elected official who has no problems whatsoever in playing God with other peoples' lives and economic circumstances; especially public servants who probably worked real hard to implement the various programs he or she might've legislated down through the years. The pols might not be saying so in so many words, but they are implying to some degree that humans are "waste" that can be wiped off the roles with a mere eraser, notwithstanding how many years they worked at lower pay for the government. They made a trade off of lower pay for greater job and benefits security and now they're being told they've been moochers out of somebody else's wallet.
I've seen this with my wife's job as a food service worker in the same school system she grew up in. Her department is being outsourced to save a mere $150,000 in a wealthy college town, yet surrounding blue collar cities and towns are able to keep their "lunch ladies" on the public payrolls even though the private firms these other respective cities school committees hired blew hundreds of thousands of dollars compared to Amherst's zero, save for normal pre-set budgetary figures. Wealthy tenured faculty members, using a school committee as a hobby horse, are doing pretty much the same thing as that commissioner in Florida. Using weighted words like "eliminating waste," "reducing costs" and treating people like units instead of human beings to marry
the ends to their means.
Jim, you said something that described a former governor from this state, who basically yukked his way throughout GOP circles by ridiculing his state while at the same time taking credit for a "health care system" that actually hurts the poor more than it helps.
I'm sure this commissioner is a decent public servant and only means for the best. But to me when I hear similar acecdotal references and phrases like "We have to hold people accountable" I start looking for the carts, the guillotine and Madame Defarge sitting and knitting by the accused's "dock." (Or start blocking my ears for the squeaky sound of a broken chalk scratched across a blackboard.
If the boyos in Tallahassee think they can sit back and let the wonders of the private sector pull them out of this swamp, it's time to reopen the old mental institution near Pembroke Pines, and lock it inside until all necessary legislation is voted, signed into law and immediately appropriated for. And to drive home the point even quicker: put a very committed staff of perhaps recently laid off mental health workers to staff the place to ensure that action is taken.
You wrote a wonderful article and I hope your daughter's friend will be more suaded by your points than any boiler room nonsense coming from the GOP headquarters in Washington. Because the person behind the writing of these boiler plate "taxation policy talking points" for GOP candidates is most likely that notorious anti-public servant, anti-government Grover Norquist, whom I hold beneath contempt.