(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers – promoted by odum)
A new Senate proposal would tax the paychecks of nearly 330,000 wage earners in Vermont. The tax increase would affect the average wage earner in Vermont by about $40-$80 per year. I know we need creative ideas to fix the challenges we face, but this is the wrong idea at the wrong time.
Montpelier underfunded our unemployment insurance program by increasing benefits without increasing contributions paid by employers to support the fund. Now, when we need it the most because unemployment is at nearly seven percent, the fund is out of money. President Obama has made a wise decision to boost the no-interest loans to states adversely affected by the downturn. We should use this opportunity to reset our economy, get people the help they need and start creating jobs by supporting existing businesses in Vermont that are ready to grow. The last thing we should do is take more money out of a family’s budget or spike unemployment taxes on small businesses.
Increasing taxes on working Vermonters will hurt families that are already struggling. We should instead take advantage of emergency aid available through federal programs to help us ride out economic storm.
President Obama has made a wise decision to boost the no-interest loans to states adversely affected by the downturn. We should use this opportunity to reset our economy, get people the help they need and start creating jobs by supporting existing businesses in Vermont that are ready to grow. The last thing we should do is take more money out of a family’s budget or spike unemployment taxes on small businesses
I’m on unemployment benefits right now, and even getting the max, it’s still not easy.
Ms. Markowitz, do you still consider reducing unemployment benefits to be on the table?
I agree with the above post about taxing the rich to help with this unemployment fund. They’ve made out alright and Douglas is making sure that they do even better. It’s time for those that created this recession to help pay for the effects of it.
but the comment:
Montpelier underfunded our unemployment insurance program by increasing benefits without increasing contributions paid by employers to support the fund.
Is this the same Montpelier that you have been working IN as a constitutional officer??? It is great to find Jesus now, but where was this voice when the foundation for the problem were happening?
Your statements are right on and correct. It is a bad plan in many ways, but just like the retirement situation with the teachers fund, NOT doing the job of keeping government solvent and meeting obligations in the good times is the issue. People who hold public office at your (and all the other candidates to an even greater extent, to include the Treasurer) needs to be spotlighted and responsibility accepted.
This is a mess we are all being asked to clean up… and borrowing the money from the feds is not a doallendall solution…
Where are you on the tax issue??? Lets see something from you that is proactive not reactive.
Thanks for being here…. being critical does not mean I dont appreciate your thoughts.
Hoopster is correct to ask why candidates are just now realizing the error of their ways. Didn’t see that one coming, did we?
Proactive will win my vote. Tired of listening to hollow reactive rhetoric.
I fully understand the reality that the middle and lower classes have been financially raped by the upper economic classes of this country.
HOWEVER … those of us not in the upper crust are just as responsible for the outcomes of our political process. Forcing everybody to pitch in gives ownership of the problem and solution to everybody.
We need this sense of ownership, and we need it badly. Otherwise we’ll never get folks to understand the real day to day economics that have been sucking real wealth and economic independence (along with the accompanying political power) from the bottom up to the top.
you said “The last thing we should do is…spike unemployment taxes on small businesses.”
I’m not sure how one defines “spike” but the reality is actually quite modest.
— Assume a business’ rate is 4% (about the middle of the rate schedule).
— Assume the taxable wage base increases from $10,000 to $12,000.
— Assume the annual wage is $35,000.
For each employee, the cost to the employer would be an additional $80 per year (from $400 to $480). So if a small business has five employees, the total increase would be $400, which is equal to two-tenths of one percent of total payroll (and less than $0.04 per hour in wages).
An increase yes. However, I’m not so sure it can fairly be characterized as a “spike”.