U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 15, 2005 09:00 AM UTC

Is the Tax Cut Era Ending?

  • 81 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

It’s pretty quiet today in Colorado political land, so we took at look the New York Times, which features Colorado in a story asking if voters’ appetites for tax cuts has faded.

Has the American voter’s ardor for cutting taxes and shrinking government cooled?

Voters in California, Colorado and Washington State rejected ballot measures this month that would have rolled back tax increases or limited state spending. Some say the votes could mark a turning point in a decades-old revolt against high taxes that got its symbolic start in California in 1978 with Proposition 13, which sharply limited property tax increases for homeowners and cut deeply into state services.

It may be, some analysts suggested, that after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and this year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes, Americans saw the value of government investment in infrastructure, public safety and other services and are now more willing to pay for it.

“It looks like that to me,” said John G. Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California Law School. “The public sector did a lot of belt-tightening during the last recession, and the public now appears to be letting it out a few notches. I think we saw that in Washington State and Colorado.”

On Nov. 1, Colorado voters approved a ballot proposition that would allow the state to keep a projected $3.7 billion in tax revenue over the next five years rather than return it to taxpayers. In California last Tuesday, voters resoundingly defeated Proposition 76, supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The measure would have limited state spending and given the governor broad new powers to cut spending when state revenue lagged.

And in Washington, an initiative put on the ballot by antitax groups failed last week by a six-point margin, letting stand a 9.5-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax passed by the Legislature.

Tweet
Share

Comments

81 thoughts on “Is the Tax Cut Era Ending?”

  1. See also the Time magazine article on America’s 5 Best Governors: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html. Three of the five (two of them Republicans) pushed massive tax increases and are still well-liked by the voters, perhaps in part because they also trimmed government spending. The single-minded zealotry of anti-tax crusaders is too simplistic the current political environment. Voters are willing to pay higher taxes if they know the money will be well-spent on programs they approve of–education, healthcare, and, in other states, roads.

  2. Any who read the Ref C tea leaves as a license for tax increases in Colorado are sadly mistaken.  In fact, I do hope the Dems push their usual tax-increase agenda — they will learn only too quickly at the polls that voters won’t trust them to manage the purse strings.  Because Coloradans saw the wisdom in eleminating the TABOR ratchet for five years to recover from the recession, does not at all mean Colorado is now some pro-tax-increase state.

  3. I do think that there will be a need for more spending in this state. Spending on Schools and on other items to help draw new business here to Colorado. I think the mindset of CO is becoming more progressive and blue by the day.

  4. I just want to tax rich people.  Down with all sales taxes!  Up with all capital gains and dividend taxes!  Down with “user fees”!  Up with Estate Taxes!  And can we please get a progressive income tax in this state?  How stupid is it that everyone pays the same rate?

    Someone explain to me why I pay 35% of my money to the Feds in the form of Payroll and Income Tax, while a super-rich person who makes all their money from capital gains pays only 10%?

    Tax wealth, reward work.

  5. Pacified:  You say “tax wealth, reward work.”  Do you think those who attained upper middle class lifestyles didn’t WORK to achieve their success?  Your slogan might as well just say “tax the successful, reward the underachievers!” 

    And, then you want to tax people twice — once when they earn the money and a second time when they die and pass the inheritance to their family?

  6. I’m with pacified.  Our tax system bends over backwards to reward the accumulation of wealth, not hard work.  Of course many of the super-rich did work for their money, but those at the bottom work much, much harder, and are “rewarded” for their essential labor by paying more taxes than the rich.

    When we are facing what most economists agree is a fiscal crisis, with war costs spiraling out of control and not even an attempt to address our trade imbalance, it would be lunacy to propose further tax cuts for multimillionaires, right?  But that again has been Republicans’ highest legislative priority this session.  It is profoundly un-American.  It turns the American Dream on its head.

    Americans understand the idea of sacrifice in a time of crisis.  The rich do not.  They would prefer to buy their way out of paying their fair share by purchasing influence at the highest levels of government, and by avoiding the modest taxes they are bound to pay. Most of us cannot afford the expense of setting up Bahamian front corporations in order to disguise our income, or hunting down every legal loophole in the code to avoid contributing back to our country.  Of the 500 richest Americans, Bush has personally met with over a third since he took office, according to the Washington Post.

    That’s not America, that’s an oligarchy.

  7. Pacified,
    You should go do yourself a favor, just like every liberal should, and pick up a copy of Forbes “400 Richest People in America”.  As you will see, 75% of the people on that list WORKED for their money, it was not handed to them, it was not given to them.  They took risks, they were rewarded, and many of them, Democrat and Republican alike give back to society in ways that you and I can only imagine.  The problem with liberals on the issue of wealth and taxes in this country is that their emotions get in the way of reality.  Our country is unique in its ability for those who work hard, take risks, or are talented enough to differentiate themselves from the “pack” to live whatever life they want to live.  Last time I checked, our country provides for the right to PURSUE Happiness, not be guaranteed it.  Tax the wealthy; bring them to their needs, Castro would be proud!

  8. notice how none of the people opposing my ideas bothered to address the issues I raised… like why are capital gains and dividends taxes at a lower rate than income.

  9. Beauprez-nitwit:  You say “it would be lunacy to propose further tax cuts for multimillionaires… But that again has been Republicans’ highest legislative priority this session. It is profoundly un-American.”  What you say is not profoudnly un-American, it is profoundly UNTRUE!  You are speaking Democratic talking points.  Show me republican efforts to provide tax cuts only for millionaires. 

    And, don’t you think Gov. Owens has met with most of the rich folks in Colorado?  Does that make our state an oligarchy?  Nonsense.  So what if Bush met with rich people.  You sound like you are envious.

  11. Pacified,
    How about economic stimulation for overall market improvement and gains, thus improving such things as 401(k) levels for private companies and IRA’s?  I know that we are not supposed to ask, but because this discussion might warrant it, what do you do for a living?  If you have time to post, yet are unhappy with wealthy individuals keeping their wealth, then my guess is that you are in IT?

  12. Several conservative posters here have already stated the obvious fact: Ref. C is not a cure-all to the State’s budget problems.  It doesn’t even accommodate the increases that have happened over the past 4-10 years, nevermind provide an increased level of services.  The system is broken beyond the ability of a TABOR referendum to fix.

    The Democratic leadership is all on board maintining the strict spending guidelines offered to the voters in Ref. C; I doubt we’ll see much in the way of “irresponsible spending” – I’m not sure there’s enough money to spend irresponsibly in the first place.  So all you anti-government types out there can quit drooling over the prospects of Dems over-reaching.

  13. What is with this constant raise taxes mentality? We all know that taxes are inevitable and most sober people realize this and pay up without bitching. But the whole concept that raising taxes more and more will solve the world’s problems is crazy. It is probably a reality that the super rich don’t pay taxes equal to income as the rest of us, (I don’t know because I’m far from rich), so let’s change the tax structure. Not just raise taxes. All you are doing is killing the middle class.
    Or don’t we matter?

  14. Tricky.  Yes I work in IT.  And I don’t have a problem with wealthy people being wealthy.  My problem is with people who are wealthy paying less tax than I do because they make their money through capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at 10%, while my ass is taxed at, what 28% for federal stuff, 2% for Medicaid, 6.5% for FICA, and 4.5% at the state level.  I pay 41% of all the dollars I earn to the gov’t, while a rich person collecting LT capital gains  on their stock pay 10%.

    How is that fair?

  15. Dislike of IT workers, Dick?  Let me tell you about my IT career…

    As a print and tape operator, I made $18k – $22k per year, had no benefits, and froze my *** off at my data center desk while working shift work.

    As a Customer Service rep I made $24k – $30k per year, got either sucky or no benefits, and watched most of my collegues burn out after approximately 8 months due to intense stress.

    As a Systems Admin, I’ve worked in only one job where the number of admins met or exceeded the professionally recommended staffing level.  I always had more on my plate than I could accomplish in a given timeframe, and in all but that one job, I received little to no recognition that I was doing my job by keeping systems running.

    Now, I’m a reasonably well-paid professional, but I still spend ~$2k per year of my own money maintaining my security certification, and I’d be spending more if I had more certs to maintain.  Unless I move to a big company, I won’t be getting time off to attend professional conferences or certification training, so that comes out of my vacation time.  And I’m still doing two full-time jobs.  I have a vastly increased risk of both carpal tunnel syndrome and glaucoma due to work conditions, but like an 1800s coal worker, I will receive no compensation if I ever develop either work-related disability.

    I am not unique in the IT field – so lay off the IT workers a bit, eh?  Give us some understanding and love.

  16. don o. vann,

    Try again without insults.  I’ll be glad to respond in detail.

    Gecko,

    You ask, “What is with this constant raise taxes mentality?”

    The “mentality” that you describe does not exist.  Instead, the debate is between those who want to preserve the reduced set of essential services government now provides, and those who believe government has no role.  Coloradans voted to keep our roads and schools from further deteriorating, but Referendum C does not provide enough money to do anything else, and the funds are specifically designated.

    As pacified points out, a progressive income tax has met Americans’ definition of fair for at least 80 years.  Only recently have we decided that it’s actually the already-super-rich who need a break, despite the fact that their wealth was accumulating at an increasing rate already.  It’s an obvious political sop, and it would be despicable even if we were not at war.

    I don’t hate rich people.  I don’t hate any group in particular.  I just think it’s American for everyone to pay their fair share.  Bush and I disagree on that.

  17. As to the tax rate bit, I have a proposal that I think is reasonable:

    * Purchases of new stock offerings from a corporation should be given a significant tax break, perhaps as low as the 15% rate that capital gains are currently charged.  These are actual investments in corporations.

    * Dividends are 100% tax write-offs to corporations, and are taxed at a slightly reduced rate – not so low as the new stock discount.  A corporation divvying up profits through dividends is to be encouraged.  I was never a big fan of taxing corporations for dividends and letting the shareholder off scott-free – it sends the wrong message.

    * Capital gains from speculation are taxed at the full rate.  It’s not much better than gambling really, and aside from driving up the numbers artificially, of no direct help to corporations.

  18. Tricky Dick,

    “Tax the wealthy; bring them to their needs.”

    I know this was a typo, but I like how it worked out.  Could be a bumper sticker, even.

  19. Why have wages or a “free market” at all?  Why not just let government have all wealth that is created and let it give people what they need to survive?

    That way, government has funding for all of the essential services they provide and society is classless and free of envy.

    Oh, wait a minute, I made a fatal error.  I separated government from society when actually they should be one and the same.  Sorry.

  20. What’s most disgusting in figuring your tax bill is the capital gains and dividends. The principle was taxed as income, then any rewards you get off investing gets taxed as well.

    Then we have people who want a higher percentage from the wealthy. Oh yes let’s spit on hard workers some more.

    Makes me wanna become a leech on society, apparently that’s where all the real rewards lie.

    Capital gains and dividend tax rates affect everyone from the poor to the wealthy. Another TABOR rebate (investment in Colorado) that got trampled due to C’s passage.

    Sincerely,
    a low income Coloradoan

  21. I know this is going to start a storm.. but what is definition of “wealth” that all of you are using?

    Greater than 100K?  200K? 500K? 1MM?

    The discussion here seems to be taking a spiraling downturn without identifying what level are you considering to be wealth, and what level is the fruits of labor.

  22. You’re starting to get dated, Tricky Dick.  There’s less social mobility in America know than at at any time since the 20’s.  What that means is that the vast majority of the new generation of wealthy had wealthy parents, and the great majority of the children of poor are going to stay poor, no matter how hard they work.  Repealing the estate tax does not reward hard work, it permits indolence, and that’s only exacerbated by low capital gains tax rates.  On the other end, access to quality education is critical to widespread social mobility in the information age, and the only way to make quality education available to those whose families cannot pay the entire cost is taxes.  I’m not at all for taxing the wealthy to either their knees or their needs, but to suggest that taxes necessarily interfere with the American dream is absurd.

  23. Tricky Dick,

    I couldn’t agree with brio more.  It is passe and quite frankly, ridiculous, to believe that wealth, when spent by you, can achieve any level of happiness. 

    Get with the times man!  Living for the sake of others is the only real path to happiness.

  25. Tricky Dick,

    you need to ignore the fact that we haven’t had “quality education” since the 1920’s, when “social mobility” was at its greatest.

    You should also ignore the Ben and Jerry’s commercials that claim that 330 family farms disappear every week.  The estate tax has nothing to do with that.  I repeat: the estate tax has nothing to do with the loss of family farms.

    got it? good.

  26. Brio,

    I would have to disagree with your statement concerning the poor staying poor, the rich will most likely always stay rich I agree on that account.

    Both my parents came from families that could barely put food on the table, neither of my parents were able to graduate from college, not because they weren’t smart enough, but because they didn’t have enough money (loans were lacking then).

    Now my parents have risen to being self-suficent members of the community, and have come a long way from where they started, of course there were bumps in the road, but hell who hasn’t had them.

    Now comes my brother and I, we are both Professionals making a lot more money,have gone on to college, graduated, plus continued on and received graduate degrees. This means that both of us have bettered our parents.

    The idea that the poor have to stay poor is crap to me, I think that if people have the drive and desire to be better then their parents they can do it. Is it going to take hard work, hell yes, but really nothing should come easily.

  27. Pacified – I’d say that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income for a number of reasons.
    The money someone puts into an investment is just that, it’s an investment, and not income.  Investments have risk – if you were taxed at the same rate as income, there would be significantly less motivation to risk loosing your initial income to invest. 

    Plus, it’s basically double-taxation–is that not already un-constitutional in many ways?  We’re only supposed to be taxed once, not twice, or three, or five times.

    Just because someone makes more money than someone else doesn’t make it right for you (or the gov)to decide what is ‘fair’ and what is not.  Take commercial pilots…since they’ve been going through furloughs and having to cut benefits, I often hear; “hey they can afford it, they’re already making 250k”.  Most people though don’t stop to think that the well off have bills to pay too.  As most folks income rises, they’re lifestyle does as well.  So, if I’m at 150k and paying 27%, and your at 60k and paying 20%, how is it that I’m not paying my fair share?  Do the math–the poor don’t pay income taxes. 

    Would you rather have the top 1% pay ALL the taxes, and not the 35% or so they pay now?

    One more thing–yes lay off Phoenix and the whole IT worker thing; I’m in that biz too and it’s been a tough row for the last few years.  Picking up nicely though latley.

  28. daisycutter,

    You’ve got the top income rate wrong.  According to government figures, the top 1% are taxed at approximately the same rate as the lower middle class – less than 20%.

    Sure, our top marginal rate is >35%, but most rich people get most of their income from captial gains, which are taxed at 15%, then take the $75k Hummer deduction and mortgage deductions, and…

    Now about that double-taxation bit from tax me to death and you, daisycutter:

    Just how is income earned gambling on the open market “double-taxed”?  And how exactly is it “investment”?  It’s not really either.  You’re not investing in a company – you’re purchasing a virtual piece of paper that’s likely already been around the globe a couple of times.  You bought it from some other guy who was willing to trade in well-used goods, who bought it from some other guy, et cetera, et cetera.  The piece of paper you just bought for $20 was last seen at the company whose name appears on the front three years ago with a price tag of $5.  $15 of that paper’s supposed worth was never seen by the company who printed it.  So what exactly is your investment?  The first buyer paid the $5 investment in the company, not you…

  29. Raiders,

    Technically speaking, as of 2000, the top quintile (20%) started at just over $195k household income per year.  The top 5% starts at just over $425k per year household income.  And the people most benefitting from the Bush Administration tax cuts – the top 1%, start at just under $1.3 million.

    So let’s go from there, shall we?

  30. It’s still an investment Phoenix.  An investment is something you put capital (income) into, and you expect it’s value to rise.  For the sake of our dicussion, we’ll put aside stocks.  Is it a different principle with real estate? 

    I do agree with you though on tax loopholes and write-off’s.  There are clearly way too many options out there to shelter one’s income.  Both sides of the isle use these loopholes and shelters to avoid their taxes, and that isn’t right.  As long as these loopholes are there though, nobody is breaking the law–we can all agree our tax system needs reform.  I just believe that it’s not right to pour taxes on someone when they’ve (as Al says) hit life’s lottery.

  31. Note that much of capital gains is simply inflation.  I would index for inflation, then tax the rest as ordinary income, though allowing for multi-year averaging.

  32. For the most part, no, I don’t believe Real Estate investments are any different or better unless you are a developer, in which case you’re actually investing in the land by developing it.  On the other hand, I wouldn’t want it set up so that selling your property when you move becomes a tax liability, but the current system already compensates for that.

  33. daisycutter,

    If you lose money on your “investment” you can deduct that from your taxes.  Up to $3,000 per year (I think), that you can roll-over year over year if you lose more than $3,000.  So if in one year I lose $12,000 in investments, the next 4 years I can substract $3,000 from my taxes from that one “bad” investment.

    That’s called capital loss.

    And double taxation.  What do you call buying a soda pop?  I already paid state income tax, now the bastards are charging me sales tax!

    Double taxation = total b.s.

  34. I also disagree on a couple of points, voyageur; the long-term average on stock market returns is 10%, but inflation hasn’t nearly averaged that (thank goodness); also, I am one of those old-fashion folks who think that dividend returns are the proper way to compensate investors, and that those returns are a more appropriate way to compensate for inflation.

    But your basic point is valid; some amount of inflation adjustment could be in order – if it were also applied to other long-term returns like savings accounts.  This country has long lacked a knack for automatically adjusting penalties, minimum wages, tax rates, mineral and logging fees, etc. for inflation.

  35. We agree on lots, pacified. 

    We’re taxed at every turn.  Last year I sold a leased vehicle, which I was paying monthly taxes on.  When it sold, I had to pay the retail tax on it before the new owner could pay his retail tax on it and tag it.  Two people payed retail tax on one transaction.  I took this up with the legislative council, and after their research, they agreed it was an improper tax.  BUT, no alternative available because they don’t track how much tax revenue that lopsided rule provides.  That is insane.

  37. Beaupreznit — still waiting for “the details” you promised don o. vann that would support your claim that the GOP’s “highest priority” is cutting taxes for millionaires?

  38. Red-Wings-
    I did not say its impossible, far from it, but only that its become less common for people born of working class or poor parents to move very far up the social ladder.  And not to take anything from your accomplishments, but I have to ask if you attended public schools, at any level (K through professional)?  If so, taxes helped you make it.  Did you get Pell grants or subsidized Stafford loans?  Taxes helped you make it.  Hell, did you live in a generally peaceful community?  Taxes paid for the cops.  I’m not suggesting that taxes are necessarily good, only that they aren’t necessarily bad, either.  Properly spent, tax money can make upward mobility more available to more people (along with respond to natural disasters and various other useful things).

    For what its worth, in terms of education or economics, I too have climbed higher than anyone else in my family.  I am proud of what I have accomplished, but I am also aware that progressive taxes helped pay for decent public schools for me to attend through college and for subsidized loans to help me attend a private professional school.  And now I’m willing to pay a higher marginal rate on my income to see those opportunities in place for the next generation.

    And you know what?  I hope to leave a decent bit of money to help my kids on their way, but I have no illusions that the American dream will be fulfilled by them getting it all tax free, and then leaving off the capital gains of their inheritence tax free while all around them people are working their butts off to get ahead, and paying taxes on what they earn.

  39. Voyageur – Your idea re: taxing capital gains is an interesting one.  Do you know if anyone is looking seriously at doing this?

    Since no one seems interested in responding to the pols, I will take a crack at it.  I do think the era of the majority of voters reflexively and reliably opposing every tax increase, and rallying to every candidate who claims to be anti-tax is over.  That does not mean the electorate is suddenly pro-tax (thankfully), just that the majority are now willing to listen.  In practical terms, this should diminish what has been a reliable republican rallying cry for the past quarter-century (don’t tax & spend, borrow & spend!).

  40. back up – how about checking the $74b tax cut the House was poised to pass just the other day that would make permanent some of the most regressive tax cuts, at the same time the budget bill was chopping $50b in food stamps and other programs for the most needy.  (I don’t know the status of it now that the budget bill got canned.)

    In fact, let’s ask a question: why is it that the GOP is still raiding the Treasury for more money than it’s cutting when our interest payments are rapidly approaching the size of the Pentagon budget?

  41. The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

    –President John F. Kennedy, 1963

  42. Here is an excellent discussion by Prof. Vern Krishan of why cap gains taxes are lower than other taxes:

    The first problem with capital gains is the bunching effect. The bunching effect means if you buy shares in year one for $20 and sell the shares in year five for $120, the gain of $100 reflects the unrealized accrual of gains over five years. The triggering event is the transaction of selling the shares, which then triggers the capital gain. Until that time, the gain is simply accruing and developing and it has no adverse consequences on the taxpayer.  That can be unfair to some taxpayers, and particularly lower-income taxpayers, because is it bumps you up from one rate bracket to another at the lower income brackets.
    The second problem with capital gains is that it has a lock-in effect. If you have an accrued capital gain, you have a real incentive not to sell and move your capital into another use. For example, a taxpayer with an unrealized gain of $100 paying tax at 30% would trigger a tax if he or she sold the underlying security, which means in order to justify the economic decision, you have to pay the tax and reinvest $70 and get back to your $100 in order to be in the same position. Unless you have an investment that will appreciate at that rapid rate, you will very seriously consider lock-in and not sell.  This lock-in effect is generally regarded as being inefficient because it does not allow capital to move such that it can be put to the most effective usage.
    The third problem with capital gains is that part of the gain is illusory. This is related to the bunching effect and the timing effect. If you bought a share for $1 in 1972 and the share is worth $100, it has appreciated 100 times – your accrued gain is $99. You will be taxed on the $99. However, your gain is not $99 because the purchasing power of $99 when you realize the gain is nowhere near the purchasing power of the dollar back in 1972 when you acquired the asset; there is an inflationary component in the gain that is triggered at the time you sell the asset and you have to pay taxes. The problem is that you are taxing an illusory gain.

  43. What JFK said is true, but until the ’80s at least, the stock market wasn’t driven so much by speculation; it was a much more limited market driven largely by the actual health and profit (read: dividend payout) of the corporation.  The computerization of the market and the vast influx of capital from 401(k)s and other retirement investments has completely changed the operation of the market; demand has so outstripped the meaningful supply that the supply has transformed itself into a futures speculation vehicle from a sound investment policy.

  44. BK,

    So average the gains over the time of ownership and tax at an appropriate rate, or at least the rate of the past 5 years where the taxpayer is already forced to retain records.  That removes the penalty for the small-scale investor while retaining the true nature of the tax for the wealthy.  It also removes the disincentive to re-investment in new stocks.

    I’ve already stated I’m not against inflationary adjustments, provided we’re willing to go through and do those adjustments across the entirety of the federal government.

  45. Tax tax tax…………whoo hooo……tax some more. Tax gas, tax death, tax working, tax land, tax cars, tax houses, tax land, tax inheritance, tax capital gains, tax cigarettes, tax Boston tea, tax anything that moves or doesn’t move. The war cry of politically correct liberal socialists

  46. taxtaxtax,

    you are looking at it all wrong, we tax for your benefit.  If we didn’t you know what would happen?  The sky would fall.  Is that what you want? 

    If the cartoons are correct, we will then get pulled apart by the vacuum of space.  Is that what you want? To be pulled apart?

    Remember, it’s for your benefit.

  48. This has been the most important, and entertaining, post I’ve ever seen on this site! Thanks to everyone. This blessed country has achieved a preiminent position in the world, unlike any country (i.e, empire) that came before it. It does an excellent job creating wealth (I won’t go to the point that Bush has BORROWED more money in his 5 years than all previous presidents COMBINED!), it just does a terrible job distributing that wealth.

    For those of us blessed, congratulations. Through brains, parents, hard work and perhaps some luck we enjoy a very nice standard of livng. A material standard, not necessarily a healthy, sane, responsible standard. (We can talk about that later)

    The world is getting smaller. Economic justice will go a long way to ensuring Peace. Do you want to live with the alerts we saw post 911? Do you want your children living in fear? Do you want the air you breath unsafe? The water you drink, cancerous?

    Reduce population through reasonable and ethical means. Save the environment. Spread the wealth.

  49. Off Topic, but Chuck Hagel…..well…read for yourself:

    Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned.

    Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.

    “The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform,” the Nebraska senator remarked. “This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration?s policies.”

  50. Back on topic:

    There is a special place in hell for Bush, Frist, Hastert and all the rest.

    Of course, it’s no coincidence that the Republicans cut money for Ground Zero heroes on the same day that Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist pens an op ed about how we need MORE tax cuts.

    Hey, what’s a few dead 9/11 firemen and policemen when there are rich corporate executives who need their 4th, 5th, or is that 6th tax cut already?

    If you like what you’re hearing, please do vote Republican.

  51. Beaupreznit

    Earlier you responded to me saying that the “constant raise taxes mentality” doesn’t exist. You are wrong. I am new to this site, started watching before the C&D votes, and many if not a majority of the people writing in seem to be completely for raising taxes and completely against cutting taxes. Period. Like there is no gray area. “Taxtaxtaxtax” was I’m sure, kidding, but what he says is true. There is a bullshit tax on everything you do, buy, read, say, hear, etc.
    I’m not anti tax. I have said many times that we all need to pay our dues. But socialism isn’t the answer. We need a re-vamped tax code. One that is fair to all depending on what you earn.

    And the notion some say that we need to re-distribute the wealth from the rich to the non rich is plain wrong. That would give nobody any incentive to even get out of bed in the morning. I have never heard of such anti-american bullshit as that. Yeah so there are people that make an obscene amount of money. I wish I was one of them. Usually they earned it. Doesn’t mean we need to take it all away and give it to the lazy bastards I see at the county building down the street from where I work everyday. (Go ahead and rip on me. I know they aren’t all lazy but most drive to get their handouts in cars way nicer than mine. And my job has put me in their apartments many times doing repair work for the city housing authority. Many get to sleep in till noon or so just in time to go back for another handout. That is not a lie. That is first hand truth. I have been there and seen what they drive and how many live)
    Having spent 21 years in the service industry and having to fulfill yearly contracts with the city, I could go on and on about the less fortunate in Colo. Spgs. From what I’ve seen over the years, many live better than me and don’t have to work 10 hour days.

  52. My turn to say “nice rant” Gecko:-)

    Here’s something to chew on. The military is the worst abuser of our immigration policies. Hell, blacks were first integrated with whites in WWII.

    We need to take a hard look at the military-industrial complex

  55. all too well.  unfortunately, we’ll have to be crushed by the weight of this burden before there is meaningful tax reform.  Our demise will happen by a vote of 49%-51%. or is it 48%-52%? 

    regardless, the apologists for the bureaucracy will always outspend common folks in their campaigns for the benefits of our labor.

  57. Yeah Sirrah Robin… WTF does that mean? I hadn’t heard of illegal immigrants lining up to sign up for their chance to die for America as member of the US Military…

    But if this is what you are alledging sirrah… Can anyone who is serving in the US Military be considered, by definition, an illegal immigrant?

  58. Raider, Mike,

    I heard that there were illegals out at Lowrey doing construction work.  This was second hand info.  I doubt if the military is the “worst abuser”.

    and I don’t know what it has to do with the NYT assertion that Americans may be ready to fully embrace socialism.

  59. Brio,

    Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, had meetings last night, and just getting back here.

    Yes, I agree that taxes helped pay for my education (k-12 only), my parents knew this too which is why when they were looking at buying a house, they chose to move to a neighborhood with good schools, and higher property taxes. However, I am not sure I can truely agree with the idea that since my parents worked there butts off, that when they die the government should get more of their money. While I know that technically this money isn’t mine, but its really not the government’s either, so why should the estate (which is my brother and I) have to give back money they worked so hard for.

    As far as a class system in the US, I feel (note opinion only) that people no matter how low they are can really  move up, maybe not to be the next millionaire, but can improve their life, but most people now-a-days think it should be handed to them. Instead of working hard and having to struggle, they would rather it just be given to them. For those people, they lack the ability to change classes, but in a major way its their fault. Lower taxes, improved services, none of those things are going to help those type of people. If they are willing to work for it, and see the struggles, then yes I do believe they can improve their standing.

  60. Gecko,

    Doesn’t mean we need to take it all away and give it to the lazy bastards I see at the county building down the street from where I work everyday.

    I appreciate you showing your true colors.  The poor are lazy and deserve their squalor.  Let’s do continue to have them as well as middle-class Americans pay more taxes than the rich.  And let’s call any attempt to address this inequality “socialism.”  Because you live in Colorado Springs and you know how “they” live, which is apparently sleeping until noon and living like kings compared to your hard-working self.  The shiftless, immoral poor are learning good lessons from being punished.

    You’ve got it all figured out.

  61. Beaupreznit,

    where did Gecko say that anybody “deserve” their lot in life?  Who exactly is punishing the poor?  Do you think that a person wanting to keep the money they earn, rather than having it redistributed, is “punishing” the folks who would receive this largess?

    You sound as though you think the word “socialism” is a dirty word.  Do you think it is, and why?

  62. Beaupreznit

    I knew my rant would bring on criticism.
    If you had to work in the apartments of many people that are on assistance, talk to the cleaning ladies that have to clean up their messes when the bums split, talk to the apartment managers that are faced with making the apartments look like new again because it is mandated by the city, talk to the maintenance men that have to repair the walls, carpet, plumbing, etc, or even have to physically work on the buildings when they move out, you might have a different outlook. I never said everyone on assistance is a bum or not worthy. I said I have been in their homes, seen many of their lifestyles, and come close to getting stabbed because one of them was in a back room having sex in exchange for drugs. Until you have done this you can only speculate that I am somehow prejudiced. I’m only prejudiced against the lazy. Have no use for laziness.
    What did you father teach you when you were growing up? Mine told me it is a sink or swim world. He told me if I didn’t get off my lazy ass and get a job, I would live under a bridge or have to rely on the GOVERNMENT for a handout. He instilled in me pride of self accomplishment.
    We desperately need more of this today.
    I just drove by the County/Welfare office a few minutes ago. The parking lot is packed. But to my amazement dang near eveybody going in and out looked fairly happy and healthy……and most have nice cars….hhmmm

  63. That’s ’cause most of them used to be comfortably employed, Gecko.

    My opinion of a lot of poor people is that they feel trapped.  They’re working a full week or sexmore, getting shat upon, and don’t see a way out.  The term upwards mobility is almost a thing of the past now; only rarely do people move up at service or manufacturing jobs – managerial work now “requires” higher-level education which many of these people don’t have.  They get depressed because they see no end to their (near-)poverty, they let their home lives go to pot, and if they’re not careful, they start indulging in escape mechanisms.

    Do you think that sex-for-drugs bit was “laziness”?  It’s desperation and a willingness to sacrifice just about anything for an escape from a shitty life.  If we cared just enough about most of these people to give them a real chance in life, maybe we wouldn’t have so much of a problem.

    But we’re not interested in that – no.  Those people haven’t proven themselves, and deserve exactly what they’re getting.

  65. Where is your mind at Phoenix?
    Sex is always a good place to have your mind….haha

    I know what you are saying and maybe in some cases you are right. But when your job sometimes has you working in situations like I have described, you tend to get hard. I will not tolerate lazy people.
    The drug deal where I was almost stabbed, in my opinion since I was there, fits in to what I was saying. It is easier to lay around the house, sell drugs for extra easy cash, go to the welfare office later on for food stamps and rent allowances, than it is to get off your butt and work. Believe me, this has been a thorn in my side for years as I have been involved with the housing authority for a long time. I’m serious, go talk to the people whos job it is to clean up after some of these people. It would make anyone hard after awhile.
    I’m sure many who are on assistance are just going through a tough time. I did when I was in my early 20s. Dig through the couch for quarters. But I never asked for a dime from anyone. And that is how it should be, unless my dad was a lier? And since he died at a young age from crashing his Harley, I’ll fight anyone who says he is.

  66. If we cared just enough about most of these people to give them a real chance in life, maybe we wouldn’t have so much of a problem.

    If you care so much, you help them.  Don’t measure your compassion by how much you can extort from me.  Coerced altruism is an oxymoron.

  67. I hear you, Gecko.  I have a hard time getting past the Harlem windshield washers who make up to $200/hour throwing mud on your car and threatening you with a rock through your window if you don’t pay for a wash.  They drive around in shiny Caddies decked out to the nines.  Don’t tell me they have a hard life except avoiding gunshots.  But I’ve known a number of poor people, and been pretty poor myself for a while; cleaning someone else’s place isn’t high up on the priority list for most people in that situation, especially when the landlord doesn’t fix your appliances, plumbing, or heating, asks you to do the lawnwork for free (assuming you have a lawn), and just generally treats you like, well… a poor downtrodden slob.  It’s self-sustaining, really.

    Poor job -> poor self-image -> depression -> apathy – > slobbery -> poor self-image -> continued poor job…

    After a while of knowing people in that situation, you might want to slap ’em around a bit and tell them just how much better they could be doing.  But having a poor self-image and being in a depression, they won’t listen no matter how true it might be.

  68. Y’all act here like Democrats are out to take every cent of Bill Gates’ hundred-million a year earnings and leave him with a couple hundred thousand at best.  We’re not Communists.

    By wealth, the most wealthy 5% of the population controls 59% of the wealth, but pays only 38% of the taxes in this country.  Corporations paid 33% of federal income taxes through WWII and 21% as recently as the 1970’s; they now pay around 15%.  I think by these measures, tax burdens are unfair and regressive; Democrats don’t want a return to the 90% tax bracket of the 60’s, but a couple of percentage points would do a lot to balance a budget thrown way out of whack by a Republican Party bent on bankrupting the country.

  69. Corporate taxes are ultimately passed on to customers, they are a kind of hidden sales tax and hence regressive, as any other sales tax is.
    We should simply abolish the corporate income tax and make it up with a tax on upper incomes.  But Democrats are absurd when they try to claim families earning $200,000 a year are oppressed, as Kerry tried to do.  Look, anybody above 100 k is making twice the median family income and should expect to pay a reasonable share of the freight.

  72. Phoenix,

    You mean you’re not a Marxist.  Marxism relies too heavily on voluntary compliance.  Marxist communism doesn’t work because people are by nature selfish. 

    Stalin realized that you need the gun to make communism work.  It is a simple fact, Stalinism is the only way for you to get what you want when roughly half of the country wouldn’t give the government another damned dime.  You demand coerced compliance, and you get it through mob rule; even if that mob is 50%+1.  You’ve got the gun, you hold it to my head, and threatened my liberty and livelihood with it if I don’t do exactly as you say.

    In this case, I’ll be forced to pay what you and your mob consider reasonable (equality is determined by outcomes).  If I don’t pay, you and your gun-totin’ enforcers sell my home and my meager possessions to settle my debt to the government. Society and government are separate entities.  To disagree would make Stalin proud.

    IOW, you are a Stalinist, not a Marxist.

  73. Uh guys, are you trying to start a war here?  My wife and I are over that 100K mark and pay more than our fair share.  Are you proposing that we should pay more, because if so, then you are in for a hell of a fight.

  74. Raiders,

    I mentioned above that the top quintile started at $195k; I’m not even sure that target is a good place to start raising taxes a bit – maybe a bit higher even than that – but somewhere up there in the stratosphere of earnings, a percentage point or two will not make a notable difference to someone’s lifestyle, and it has certainly been paid and acceptable in the past.

  75. It is real interesting for you to state that it is acceptable to increase taxes on other people, however what would your response be if they were saying that taxes should be increased on you?

    I have a hard time believing that it should be acceptable to raise anyone’s taxes if it is not an across the board increase. 

    Why does it appear to be so acceptable to attempt to increase the tax on people who make more than average income?  Seems to me that taht philosophy is an attempt at redistribution of wealth.

  77. I find it interesting that the liberals on this site feel that it is necessary to raise the taxes on the “super rich”. 

    First, I don’t understand the reason of raising taxes, just to raise taxes.  Beaupreznit, pacified and sir robin suggest raising taxes on the on the rich, but they don’t say what the additional taxes should be used for.  I think the answer is simple; the liberals who want to raise taxes on the rich are either jealous of other people’s success and feel they should be punished or they are rich themselves (like the Hollywood elite) and feel guilty about their success. 

    Second, I don’t understand how liberals suggest that rich people don’t work for their money.  The vast majority of millionaires in the United States have earned their wealth within their lifetimes, it is not inherited.  In fact most of the inherited wealth within the U.S. is held by liberals, such as Kennedy, Rockefeller, Heinz, and the like (and I don’t begrudge them a penny).  Why do liberals hate success so much?

    Beaupreznit, states that “most economists agree is a fiscal crisis? What economists are saying this?  Also, since when is it “un-American” to propose tax cuts?  If you look at history we did not have a permanent income tax until the 1940’s.  Obviously you just hate rich people beaupreznit.  You also go on a rant saying that some of us believe that “government has not role? That is a lie, we believe in a limited role for government and that is a big difference.  Stop lying.

    Pacified, you state that the “rich pay less tax than I do” which is a complete falsehood.  If you look at the latest data from the IRS (released in October 2005) you will see that the top 1% of wage earner in the U.S. pay 34% of the taxes.  The top 5% pay 54.36% and the top 10% pay 65%.  In fact, the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.46% of taxes.  Those are the facts, so don’t try to promote a lie. 

    Phoenix, Why are you trying to get us to feel sorry for you about your current job situation?  You made your choices and now you have to deal with the consequences.  It is not our job to make sure that you are happy. You are also wrong on your figures about how much the “wealthy” pay, please see the correct numbers above.  You also keep saying that they poor are trapped, but is that is true how do so many poor families make it to the middle class?  There is always a way, it may not be easy, but there is always opportunity. 

    Brio, where do you get your facts that America is a less mobile society today than in the 20’s?  You are absolutely wrong on your facts, the vast amount of “wealthy” in the U.S. have earned their wealth and I there is not report that would prove otherwise. 

    sir robin, your a socialist, but the U.S. is a Republic.  Fortunately the Constitution will not allow your socialist idealism to become reality.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

110 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!