-
Pandora’s Problems
June 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Story Ideas for a Press Turning Against Obama
May 28, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
Special Report
Save the Country! Tax the Rich!
They all live in the bluest of states.
There’s one tax benefit for the rich that I can’t see why anyone would possibly want to defend. That’s the deduction of state and local taxes on your federal income tax.
This is a racket perpetrated by the bluest of blue states — the whole Northeast and California — in order to foist their profligacy on the rest of the nation. Nearly all the beneficiaries of this deduction are high-income people living in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland (i.e., the suburbs of Washington) and California. And you can bet the vast majority vote Democratic and spend their days congratulating themselves on how progressive they are. Meanwhile, they end up foisting the bill onto the financially responsible Republican states that have nothing to deduct because they have no income tax at all! Try Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Alaska for starters.
The theory is that the deduction of state taxes prevents citizens from being taxed twice for the same government services. Whoever thought that one up? There is no overlap of services in high tax states that doesn’t exist in every state. All the exemption does is allow politicians in profligate blue states to tell their constituents, “Don’t worry about our high taxes. You can always deduct it from your federal income tax.” (I know, I live in one.) In other words, you can stick it to the rest of the country. If you don’t believe it, just listen to Chuck Schumer howl the next time anyone mentions eliminating the deduction.
Charles Lane of the Washington Post has calculated that the exemption cost the federal government $67 billion in 2011. Is that anything to sneeze at? Moreover, an incredible 30 percent of all deductions came from residents in two states — New York and California. And wouldn’t you know, they just happen to be the most highly taxes states in the nation. New York ranks #1 overall and California #2. Others ranking near the top — Connecticut (3), Massachusetts (5), New Jersey (7) and Maryland (10). Moreover it is the richest people in these states — and only they — who benefit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 73 percent of the deductions went to taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 and 20 percent to people making over $1 million. What more surgically targeted strike on tax breaks for the rich could you possibly ask?
More than that, it’s important these people feel the full weight of their spending habits because they are on the verge of heading off a fiscal cliff and taking the rest of the country with them. Predictably, the states with the highest tax rates are also those that are in the deepest debt. Massachusetts leads the pack with $11,000 per capita. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont are all in the top 10. And the New York State figure is misleading because it doesn’t include New York City, whose $8,700-per-head debt is greater than every state except Massachusetts and Alaska ($9,500).
What states have been most prudent about borrowing? Try Tennessee, which only taxes interest and dividends and has an unbelievably low debt burden of $773 per capita. Texas (no income tax), Georgia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Nevada (no income tax), Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona, and Kansas round out the bottom ten. None of these states are run entirely by Democrats (although Minnesota just voted to go that route). The 18 states with all Republican legislatures and a Republican governor have an average debt of $2,874 per capita and a median rank of 36th. The 14 states that were all Democratic before the last election have exactly twice as much debt — $5,744 — and a median rank of 11th. There could hardly be a more dramatic contrast.
There is yet another way that high-spending states use the tax code to shift the burden onto the more financially responsible states. That is through the exemption on municipal bonds. Walk into any financial advisor’s office in New York City and they will immediately try to steer you into “triple-tax-exempts.” That means New York State or New York City bonds, whose interest income is exempt from federal, state, and New York City income taxes, which can add up to more than 40 percent. Holders of municipal bonds in every state are exempt from federal taxes but the exemption only works really well in states with high income taxes. The whole system is designed to steer money away from the private sector and into the government. Given this advantage, states and cities are encouraged to borrow even more money. It also shows how governments at all levels work in concert, favoring each other. After all, they are all in the same business — extracting more money from taxpayers.
All this is soon going to come to a head. Keep in mind, Europe didn’t hit its financial woes because the whole European Union overspent. It was undermined because one country — Greece — dug itself too deep a hole. Things then cascaded and soon Germany was being asked to bail everyone out.
That’s the way it will happen here as well. It won’t be the entire U.S. government that runs into trouble, just one or two states that finally go over the edge. Illinois is the prime candidate. The state ranks only 12 in general obligation debt ($4,424 per head) but has been raiding its pension funds since the feckless administration of Governor Rudy Blagojevich and now has unfunded liabilities of $83 billion. Only 45 percent of its pension obligations are covered, the worst performance of any state. Only California has a lower credit rating and Illinois is now borrowing $8 billion to cover unpaid bills, many of them to small businesses. Observers predict the state could be asking for a federal bailout before Obama finishes his second term.
So what happens then? Will Obama turn his back on his home state? Or will Republicans be demonized for not allowing him to rescue Illinois taxpayers? And if the federal government assumes Illinois’ pension burdens, how many other states will quickly be in line?
So there are rough times ahead. And it’s the liberal blue states that are dragging us down the chute. There’s only one way to go. Wealthy liberals in the Northeast, California, and the Chicago suburbs who congratulate themselves on their “progressive” voting patterns have to be shown there’s a price to be paid for all this profligacy. Tax the rich! It’s the only way to head off the crisis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (71) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/03/save-the-country-tax-the-rich
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.3.12 @ 6:24AM
The 67 billion you mention won't run the government for 5 days, assuming McConnell is correct and 80 billion runs it for six days.
But you're right, the blue states have advantages built into the tax codes that allows blue state governments to raise property taxes ever higher without much complaint.
It will be interesting to observe how it all comes out.
TLP| 12.3.12 @ 7:03AM
The problem is: That's the only time we'll get to SEE anything. When it's done. When it's Too Late.
The Most Transparent Administratin EVER, and it's Counterparts in this - The Freest, Openess Democratic Republic on the Planet - do everything BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
There isn't any Open Debate, anymore. We haven't had a BUDGET in 4 Years. We are being Ruled by a Collection of Star Chambers, and people who, long ago, outlived their usefulness.
Congress has become The Roman Senate, and this THING in the White House - NERO.
What will inevitably follow, has already been written.
I think I'll buy some Shells, today.
Not the pretty ones.
The Loud Ones.
Von Mises Jr| 12.3.12 @ 9:00AM
Taxes on a nice home in a manicured neighborhood in New Jersey could easily be $15K+. So if you are in the 35% marginal tax bracket, other States help bail out one-third ($5,250) of your Federal Tax burden of that $15K. It is not only the opposite of "social justice," but it creates a bubble like the housing, education and government bubbles we are seeing since those being bailed out can even afford higher property taxes as the money is redistributed to the rich.
The other interesting thing about New Jersey, is that your Property Taxes and Mortgage Interest is only deductible on your Federal taxes, not your State taxes if I recall correctly. So New Jersey is not going to lose out on the 6% or so equating to about $900 on the same property. In NYC, State and City Taxes could escalate that payment to NY and NYC by perhaps $2,500 that they are not about to forgo.
There are Homestead Rebates for low income, veterans and disabled exceptions that allow a write -off, but without digging out returns, or reading tax laws, I am sure NJ taxpayers pay State tax on their property taxes.
Abdullah| 12.3.12 @ 12:14PM
Von, congress is not going to abolish state tax deduction. How'bout my idea? TX of FL or any zero-state tax state can get their state tax set to, say 10%, than issue 100% rebate on the taxed amt. Not only it would eliminate hi-rate states' advantage, but also shaft it to the Feds. Why not?
If a single zero-tax state does it, Congress will have no choice, but eliminate state tax deductions all togeter.
Stick| 12.3.12 @ 12:51PM
Because rebated taxes would have to be reported as income for the next calendar year and be taxed. Also, never let a big pot of money hang around politicians - they will dream up some way to spend it. The beauty of denying State taxes against Fed is it creates a real limitation of the idiocy of CA, IL and NY and quickly converts libs into fiscal conservatives overnight.
Appleby| 12.3.12 @ 6:38AM
Nobody will vote to raise taxes on Democrats.
Dodd2| 12.3.12 @ 7:17AM
Good point.
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 7:31AM
Keep this quiet, but if the DemoKKKrats find out that 99% of the US Military claim Texas/Florida as their State of Residence, because all you have to do is fill out a form, it'll be the biggest Military Scandal since Petrayus getting (Classified)...
Used to crack me up, the few proud enlisted guys from New Yawk, Jersey, who insisted on paying the Shylock-esque Tax Rates on their meager incomes, while a rich Officer Bastard like me payed ZIPPY, Zero, Nada, Nichts!
And Florida License Plates looked cooler anyway...
Frank
Stick| 12.3.12 @ 12:58PM
NY doesn't tax military pay of the active duty. They do tax retirement pay. Don't know what NJ does.
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 2:47PM
umm might wanta tell the NY State "Department of Taxation and Finance"
from their website
"If you were a NY State resident when you entered the military, bla bla bla, YOUR MILITARY PAY IS SUBJECT TO NEWYORK STATE INCOME TAX TO THE SAME EXTENT IT IS TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
and yes, I'm shouting,
Jeez, do some research, dumb ass,
Frank
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:04PM
In KY you don't pay state income tax on any military pay including the pay of reservists.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.3.12 @ 7:57AM
The Post has Grover Norquist splashed all over the front page online with multiple articles. Shows you how much they fear him.
Kwan| 12.3.12 @ 7:57AM
The left is in a Catch-22 situation. They want to continue with massive social spending in order to keep their voting base happy, at the same time they are incurring massive debt that will eventually lead to bankruptcy. Which ultimately verifies that leftist ideology is bankrupt.
axbucxdu| 12.4.12 @ 10:56PM
The whole thing (leftist ideology) relies on gullible foreigners' acceptance of the FRN. When they finally bail on the dollar, and the taker's guv-issued boots wear out on the other side, be sure to do your part to focus the wrath of your neighborhood's lumpen on the likes of Purp and RCV.
Pecos Pete| 12.3.12 @ 8:00AM
Mr. Tucker: You are being way too logical. It is way too late for logic.
The rich will always have their tax shelters. You could raise the top tax rate to 99% and the rich would still be rich. You could confiscate all of their known assets (wealth) and they would still be rich. For the most part, the "old" rich won't be residing in the USA. They recognize the coming disaster and are in the process of protecting their life styles.
Public Unions and the Ruling Class are the "new" rich. There is no way wealthy politicians will give up their fun. They will write legislation that protects them.
CJW| 12.3.12 @ 8:00AM
The Reps should call the Dems's bluff.
Offer to raise the tax rates on incomes over one million, and include in the definition of income for those earning over one million capital gains and dividends so that hypocrites like Buffet, Gates, Hollywood millionairs, etc pay.
Then offer to lower the tax rates on income up to $250,000, and a 20% across the board cut in spending on all depts except Medicare and SS.
The Reps are falling for the trap of the phony issue the tax rate for persons earning over a million. No way they can win that issue with the public.
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:07PM
Need to start calling it what is it....a return to the Clinton tax rates. Repeat it ad nauseum....."It's not a fiscal cliff, we're just returning to the Clinton tax rates. If it results in an income tax increase on the middle class of $2,000 well we're just returning to the Clinton tax rates. The Clinton tax rates. The Clinton tax rates."
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 8:04AM
Okay, how many of you would be overly upset if tax rates went up on people making say 300K or more? Raise the rates another 5 percent an do what the writer says here, eliminate the state and local tax deduction. We for the moment can probably live with this especially if some of the taxes in ACA, the device tax, the flex spending tax (move the limite back to 5K instead of dropping it to 2.5K like it does this year, things like that) are eliminated. If they want to cap charitable deductions for the well to do (which would hit Buffet and Gates) that wouldn't bother me unduly at the moment either. Same for capping mortgage interest deduction on homes above say one million?
Again as conservatives we oppose higher taxes but for the moment we can surrender some of this. I would especially like to see the cap on charitable for income and especially estates above a certain level because that would get Buffet right where the smarmy so and so lives. He shields most all his estate from taxes. Eliminate the charitable tax deduction on estates and see how much he supports estate taxes then.
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 8:36AM
Ummm Nathan, if that really is your name(HT "Dr Strangeglove")
I WOULD BE OVERLY UPSET!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well X-Squeeze me that I cheated, I mean Studied hard, lucked into a lucrative specialty that nobody but Al-Kaida sleeper agents wanted to go into in the 90's,
So I make 450-500K, depending on Overtime, throw in my wifes piddly 90K, the 300-400K from the Pawnshop...
and after Riding Lessons, Pool maintenance, Private Schools, Gymnastics, Softball, Cheerleading,
I'm left with a wrinkled $20...Damn zo6's running on fumes most of the month...
And if you raise my Taxes, I'll quit donating to the charities I don't donate to now...
Actually I'd like to see the Clinton rates come back, if even only for a few weeks, to see the Hoi Poloi get stuck for an extra 7%(10 % goin to 15%, and the Payroll holiday ending)
Did I say your a Homo!!!!
Well you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pish, Pshaw, and away with you!!!!!!!!!
Frank "Greedy Old Basterd" Drackman
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 9:37AM
LOL I like that, qut donating to the charities I don't donate to now. Well said sir well said. I mean I remember seeing Biden's tax return and noting that in absolute terms that I gave more on schedule A than he did.
I sort of hate to remind everyone of this but shhhh quiet the republicans lost the last election. I know, everyone's still in a state of shock but really they lost and big. lost the presidency, lost in the senate, lost seats in the house, lost about every which a way you can lose. So cut whatever deal you can here. really.
OP4| 12.3.12 @ 9:57AM
Except... Every single seat in the House of Representatives was up for election last month - and the Republicans won a majority.
The Republican majority in the House is no less valid than the Democrat President and Senate.
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 2:41PM
Perhaps but batting .333 is impressive only in baseball. And let's face it BHO doesn't really have to give in here? But still let's see . . . .
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 2:52PM
Nathan, don't take this the wrong way...
but why don't you get back to your Hotdogs...
Frank
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:18PM
Republicans won 242 federal elections (House, Senate, President). Dems won 225. Independents won 2. So Reps won over 50%.
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 11:29AM
I thought the Bush Error Tax Cuts were the cause of all the Evils in this Oh Baby Baby its a Wild World??
So let em expire, why'd they put an expiration date if they weren't expected to go away eventually?
So its gonna hurt you more than me, to bad, y'see, there was this election, Oh yeah, you already said that,
Dumb Ass Homo
Frank " I spend more on Condoms than you do on your kid's education" Drackman
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 2:51PM
SIIIIIR: No need for name calling. We're all gentle people here. And you don't have the faintest idea what I spend on my kid's education. I have two in private schools and you KNOW what that costs. High class schools at that. But sir I suggest that we can have a civil discussion here can't we. (Reminds of a Married With Children episode. Peg calls him a toaster. He has no idea where that's coming from. He yells back, "You're a toaster." Great show.) Again, let's engage in civil/polite/calm . . . . wait a minute, who am I kidding! LOL
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 2:54PM
Only 14 yr old Girls and Creepy Pervs use "LOL"...
and you don't sound like any of the 14 yr old girls I know, Nome Sane???
Speaking of TV, what was it like meeting Chris Hansen? Is he as annoying in person as he is on "To Catch a Predator"
Frank
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 3:04PM
Oh yeah...
"Married with Children"??? Jeez, guess you can't afford cable what with your kids High Class Schools...
and if you wanta pay those Clinton Error Tax Rates, feel free...
Dumb Ass
Frank
Occam's Tool| 12.3.12 @ 12:00PM
The House can have us go over the cliff---and it should.
Good on you, Frank. I work in a low paying specialty in a high need area where no one wants to be...
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 2:11PM
dont tell me your a Flea,
I mean "Internist" "The Doctor's Doctor" the specialty to go into if you dig Minimum Wage(when you factor in all the unpaid hours of Residency/Med School)...
where no one wants to be???
Heck, I turned down a job offer in Cal-e-fornication, you know, Earthquakes, Assault Rifle Ban, and that 5,000 mile commute was a bee-otch...
Frank
Occam's Tool| 12.3.12 @ 6:01PM
Psychiatry, Frank. Damn, it's all over my posts, man.
I hate chasing labs---I'm neither surgeon nor flea. Where I live, it gets down to minus 40 in the Winter. I'm thinking of retiring DOWN SOUTH...to Fargo.
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 2:54PM
I'm sorry sir, play pied piper here? :) I don't have a problem with it either. The DOD sequestration? I suggest for your reading enjoyment the article in Reason on defense spending. Again, out of control, cut it we won't be endangered.
Terrible Ted| 12.3.12 @ 1:16PM
Frank, regarding that 10 to 15% bracket rate change: that is the least known impact of the Bush tax rate cuts. The lowest bracket was cut the most, making the overall tax more progressive. The temporary 2% SS rate reduction furthered the progressivity somewhat. Even though it’s going to hurt, I also say let all the Bush cuts expire to send the unknowing masses a message.
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:19PM
The lowest bracket will increase 50%.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.3.12 @ 8:09AM
I remember reading an article about Texas one time in which it noted that the state had a higher per capita participation of its residents in the military. With all due respect to the patriotic enlistees from the Lone Star state, I remembered how many officers from elsewhere I knew on active duty who who did exactly what you describe, and thought that maybe there might be an additional explanation beyond stellar recruiters there.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.3.12 @ 8:13AM
Oops, the above comment was directed to the 7:31 am comment of LCDR Frank "Take two aspirins and I'll call my accountant in the morning" Drackman, USNR, MD.
Joellen| 12.3.12 @ 8:13AM
Tax the Rich, Tax the Rich! Like Timmy Geitner, Charlie Rangel, Westley Snipes, etc., etc., who dont pay their taxes and suffer little or no consequences! Or do we tax the likes of Immelt (GE); Sinegal (Costco) or Obama's BFF, Warren Buffet, who never met a tax he hasnt been able to dodge and does the best impersonation of "someone who cares". Well, soon and very soon, we find out who really will suffer the burden, trust me it's not going to be the aforementioned.
Von Mises Jr| 12.3.12 @ 9:01AM
Don't tax him, don't tax me. Tax the man behind the tree.
nathan| 12.3.12 @ 3:03PM
Works for me too. Nice rhyme. I'll have to remember this. What again we all forget is that the country was lost from 1952-1954. Eisenhower has a majority in both houses. If the New Deal is going to be rolled back, dealt with on any level, this was the best chance to do it. He was a liberal though and expanded the ND. He spoke of "dynamic" conservatism which is just liberalism sort of like "compassionate" conservatism. In '56 he made it clear to "conservatives" he was going to make the GOP "progressive". At that point the country was finished. It might take 5/6 decades for the underlying foundations to erode which they have now, but erode they would. His GOP successors starting with Nixon had no intentions of challenging the ND and didn't and added to to the ND/Great Society dooming the country. They just did. The prosperity of the '50's/'60's/'70's were an illusion as we worked through our savings. But the foundation was being destroyed and more or less by now is largely gone. The next GOP president will not do anything different than his predecessors did. For you with kids, their futures are bleak indeed.
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 3:07PM
Pssstttt... Nathan,
Eisenhower died in 1969, i.e. he doesn't "Has a Majority in both houses"...
Might wanta stock up on that Namenda before the CMS Star Chambers decide it isn't cost effective, I mean, Effective.
Frank
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:21PM
Really? With the S and the D next to each other on the keyboard you can't figure out that "has" should read "had"?
Frank Drackman| 12.3.12 @ 3:32PM
Oh yeah, well Guck Off, Daggot
Drank Frackman
Frekki| 12.3.12 @ 3:51PM
Now that's funny.
TLP| 12.3.12 @ 9:31AM
I think you spelled 'Wesley' wrong.
Not bad, though.
Joellen| 12.3.12 @ 5:16PM
Tim, I think you're looking/asking for a beating:)
Anywho, Westley, Wesley - still spells tax cheat to me.
Seek| 12.3.12 @ 2:04PM
Actually, Wesley Snipes lost his case. Going up against the IRS is a longshot bet, even for black film stars.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 12.3.12 @ 5:39PM
After learning of his fate, I disregarded his advice from "Passenger 57", and switched my bet to Red.
tdiinva| 12.3.12 @ 8:27AM
An excellent article but I would like to correct an error.in the text. State and local taxes are exempt from Federal tax because of an early Supreme Court decision and not an act of Congress.
tdiinva| 12.3.12 @ 10:56AM
Too early in the morning to post. What I meant to say was the tax exempt status of state and local bond interest was set by the court not state and local taxes.
OP4| 12.3.12 @ 8:44AM
Uh... I live in NJ and come dangerously close to Obama's definition of "rich". Which makes me almost middle-class here. My wife and I hit the Alternative Minimum Tax every year - HARD. The first time I hit the AMT, I had to borrow the money to pay off the IRS. Now I have to pay an accountant to figure it out.
People with good salaries in high tax states aren't able to write off those state taxes because of the AMT.
PJ| 12.3.12 @ 10:03AM
Isn't the AMT calculated from the pre-tax income after these deductions?
Occam's Tool| 12.3.12 @ 12:00PM
The AMT is calculated to screw you.
TLP| 12.3.12 @ 1:01PM
I thought that was why they came up with The ATM Machine?
OP4| 12.3.12 @ 1:03PM
I have no idea how it's calculated. I just know my taxes went way up.
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:38PM
The ATM is a little known tax trap that has not been modified to reflect inflation. It hits more and more middle class families every year. Instead of just scrapping it Congress keeps passing "fixes" that last a year at a time.
Deerknocker| 12.3.12 @ 9:00AM
Let's first admit that the Republican's have dealt themselves a poor hand. Let tax hikes for the job producing class go through and the economy suffers. Prevent that and taxes go up on the middle class and the Republics for a generation will continue to be known as the party of the rich when the opposite is more likely the current case. The emphasis should never have been on the revenue side; it should have been about spending. Given the poor hand, the Republicans should agree to a modest tax rate increase for those at say 500,000+ income, but make the concession contingent upon significant here and now spending cuts and adoption of a few devices like the the elimination of the credit for state/local taxes outlined in Tucker's article. And how's about a provision that would broaden the tax base so few, if any, get by without paying some tax. Everybody should have some skin in the game. Perhaps then the gimme society will start to realize there is no free lunch. The Republicans have got to shift the discussion from their supposed protection of the "rich" to Obama's inflexibility on spending and tax reform.
markenoff| 12.3.12 @ 3:45PM
Let the tax rates return to the Clinton era levels. And keep repeating "the Clinton tax rates" the Clinton tax rates" the Clinton tax rates".
PJ| 12.3.12 @ 9:59AM
This article is absolutely correct. My low middle class brother lives on Long Island & pays a large property tax for his small, middle class colonial, although not as high as NJ's. One yr he went to a local political bureaucrat & asked why his property tax was so high. The hack told my brother that he wasn't really paying that much because he was going to get most of it back from his tax returns.
Will there be a tax revolt after they get rid of the local tax & charitable deductions? I can only hope! That said, it would make my tax forms easier to fill out. And as a charitable person, I would still donate in my usual way.
Maxwell| 12.3.12 @ 10:29AM
If you read the New York Post on line today, Empire on the edge by E.J.McMahon both New Jersey & New York will get a real surprise. Of course, during the last election I saw more Barry signs than Romney. Will anyone say, the chickens are coming home to roost?
No More Rinos!| 12.3.12 @ 10:52AM
Mr. Tucker, the FLAMINGLY Liberal Left, Radical Egalitarian, Godless Relativist has one more redistributionist thought: Make homeowners pay EVEN MORE taxes on money that their respective states have ALREADY CONFISCATED BEFORE they could spend those dollars on their families! That's right, says Mr. Tucker; American homeowners should pay taxes to the Feds, on money they NEVER HAD (because their respective States already took it from them), just so that the Federal dependency SPENDING can continue GROW!
Stick| 12.3.12 @ 1:02PM
Combine this proposal with disallowing mortgage interest deduction and you have a winner. Also, raise the taxes on those incomes over $1mil and push the plan to the Senate. Let the Dems argue that its unfair to Blue States. Shoosh, Harry Reid knows full well such a change in tax law will add another 500K Californians to Nevada within a year.
PolishKnight| 12.3.12 @ 1:20PM
Not only disallow the mortgage interest deduction, but outlaw the Realtor association as well which is a racketeering operation that effectively bribes politicians to keep their perks. Why should there be a 6% "tax" for someone to buy a house? Isn't that what the mafia charged restaurant owners in NYC to operate?
JD| 12.3.12 @ 1:07PM
In all things, good behavior is best encouraged if people bear responsibility for their own actions.
When well-meaning political entities seek to "help" people by redistributing their burdens or redistributing others' production to them, people no longer bear responsibility for themselves. This leads to irresponsible behaviors that hurt everyone.
Buck Ofama| 12.3.12 @ 3:00PM
In 1996, when I bought this nearly foreclosed 3400' house on a huge TVA lake, the seller said "When you live on [that street] people will say you're rich." I've never earned an annual salary more than $80K. I am definitely not "rich". TN is a pretty cheap place to live, but boring as hell.
Occam's Tool| 12.3.12 @ 6:03PM
Buck---go to the Melting Pot in Nashville every so often. Very good food. Or take a flight between Nashville and Atlanta and try Dante's Down the Hatch.
Oldefarte| 12.3.12 @ 3:09PM
I'm really quite disturbed at this TAX THE RICH bullexcrement, since everyone's taxes will increase, not just the "rich". Some writer recently editorialized the effect of the AMT on even the bottom percentage ot taxpayers if taxiation is increased. Additionally raising anyone's taxes is stupid in this economy since it won't result in defecit/debt reduction of government [since the government will only find additionaly ways of spending these increase tax receipts]. On 11/6/12, the STUPIDS initiated the political mechanism of the eventual economic destruction of this country, and there now is no way of reversing same. The BJ and his domestic terrorist were given another four years, and it will begin urraveling 1/1/13. There is no longer any rationality left in this nation's voting process, since the inmates are now firmly in control of the asylum. They control the propaganda and brainwashing mechanisms to control this nation, and they did so successfully 11/6/12. Every TV program or theatred movie you and yours view is indoctrination. Every day your children go off to public school is 8 hours of indoctrination. Your policemen, firemen, street/sewer system etc municipal workers are politically controlled by being members of municipal labor unions. This process began decades ago and gradually evolved into today's status. We might as well have a computer chip embedded inside our heads telling us how and who to vote for!!!!!!!!!!
Purp| 12.3.12 @ 3:51PM
You are way off base. It is these same richies that are ASKING for their taxes to be raised.
Nice job trying take an axe to their selflessness - it didnt' work
Now let's talk about the filthy rich righties Adelson and Koch Bros and how much they pay! They will be paying more and Adelson may end up in jail. 150 million couldn't buy him a President!
CJW| 12.3.12 @ 6:14PM
Purpie the Village Idiot's view of the unborn child:
"Purp| 11.7.12 @ 1:16PM
The unborn have no rights - they are biological entities until God allows them to be born."
spike59| 12.4.12 @ 7:31AM
"MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
-------------------------------------------------------
in other words, deficits and revenues are not the point of ObaMao's tax policy; there's an ideological point to be made, damnit!
bison cookie| 12.4.12 @ 9:47AM
OBAMA’S NOW BORROWED MORE THAN ALL PRESIDENTS FROM WASHINGTON TO W. BUSH. President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush. The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama’s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/12/o.....to-w-bush/
Marc Jeric| 12.5.12 @ 3:10AM
Here in Las Vegas we have enforced the Obama rule of taxing the rich. The local paper every week publishes the city map marked up by house breakings, car thefts, street gang attacks, robberies, murders - which of course constitutes a prime example of taxing the rich to help the poor. These criminals should be invited to the White House for particular praise.