"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Pot Calling the Kettle

The Working Families Party, who drapes New York in their tax and spend rhetoric and backs politicians with the expectance that they will behave in the same manner had this to say about the New York State budget.
"In this budget there's a tax on almost everything. Drinking, smoking, driving, food, health care, going to the movies, downloading music, clothes and haircuts. In total, it's billions in regressive taxes - "nuisance taxes" - that don't add up to a sensible approach."
If the Working Families Party can possibly think this budget taxes too much, then what does average taxpayer think? 

They have a major investment in Aubertine, et al in the Senate, lets see how much it pays them back.


hermit thrush said...

iv --
it's hard to know for sure since, as is often the case, you haven't given us a link to the wfp's full statement or to any kind of news article, but isn't the word "regressive" the key one here? agree with them or not, the wfp consistently calls for more taxes on the wealthy and less on the poor and working classes. i think their objection is that a lot of the new taxes will hit these latter groups. and again, you can agree or disagree with the wisdom of pursuing that policy, but there's nothing hypocritical about it.

Anonymous said...

I don't think PIV needs to provide a link to the Working Family Party's statements, do they? It's pretty clear what they stand for. If you want to read about that group, Kermit, just do a search on it.

The problem with taxing the wealthy is that they have cars. They tend to drive away. They also tend to be smart, so they cover their money up or become "residents" of other states. And then there is the simple (for some) concept that raising tax rates doesn't always raise tax revenues.

I don't really care about how these new taxes hit anybody. The key is how to avoid them, and how to get as much as possible for yourself. It's what we're all about.

Unless we approach this budget stuff from the spending side, it is just an exercise in screwing the children. Which is just fine for most NYers, or has been anyway. From the past couple days, it doesn't appear that anything has changed.

As far as the WFP being hypocritical, I agree with Kermit. They're not. They're simplistic, foolish, and corrupt, but they are not hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

tax'em back to the stone age.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't you consider this type of taxation be income based in any way? Let's use the idea of a sales tax, for example. In most cases, the more people make, the more they spend. Normally, items like food wouldn't be taxed, so that's off the table. That would be more equitable wouldn't it?

In some form, a lot of these are another form of income tax. Aren't they getting what they want?

hermit thrush said...

dear anon,
i confess i'm no expert on this stuff, and i'm too lazy to go read a lot about it right now (and i actually have work to do!), and i'd welcome corrections to what i'm about to say. but i don't think what you wrote is quite right. well, it's surely literally true that the more people earn, the more they tend to spend (at least up to some point of fairly serious wealth). but i think the key point, as least as i understand it, is that people on the lower end of the income scale tend to spend a larger percentage of their income. so regressive taxation means a higher effective rate on lower earners -- and that's why progressives so dislike it. of course, you can exempt food from taxation, and that helps, but there are still many other basic necessities!

while consumption and income are related, they're by no means the same, and i think that tax policies centered on one or the other will be quite different.

Anonymous said...

I'd go after you, Kermit. But just so you know, PIV won't let me anymore. You're protected class.

And you thought this was just another "right wing" blog. Funny how things work out.

Political IV said...

Sure, anyone can go after anyone else, just exercise a little decorum and do not use foul language.

Stick to the issues.

Have at!

Anonymous said...

No PIV, most all of that post was about other things than Kermit's usual stuff. Don't hide behind personal stuff. There was very little of that involved, and what was there was directly in response to what was claimed by others. And there was absolutely NO foul language. Not even close. Be honest.

It's not a problem. I'll stay back.
But be careful, you'll end up having a blog that reads like the Watertown Times. Kinda middle school.

Live Blogging