If for no other reason than lack of creativity a better reason is needed than the one currently offered for continuing to take taxes off the table:
Our citizens are strapped as it is, and we must acknowledge the competitive reality that our taxes are already high compared to most other states. ~ Gov. Shumlin
Vermont’s Spring legislative season aka budget/service cutting is in full swing and Peter Shumlin says in an opinion piece making the rounds of the state papers that his budget includes “strong medicine”.
We must have “fortitude” he says.
It’s also time for a better explanation.
Governor Shumlin noted recently that fewer than 200 Vermont residents filed income greater than $500,000 in more than one year.
“My job is to keep those 200 people in Vermont and grow the base,” Shumlin said.
Why are two hundred Vermonters fed and watered so considerately by our governor?
The rest of us, those prescribed “strong medicine” and from whom “fortitude” is demanded deserve a better argument for brushing new revenue (taxes!) out of the equation. The well chewed assertion still in re-runs from the Douglas years that the wealthy will spread their wings and fly away if they pay their fair share is overworked almost to the point of embarrassment.
This argument is particularly stale given that national and local polls have shown broad support for taxing the wealthier citizens to mitigate budget cuts.
A Vermont based poll shows: Of the 508 respondents surveyed in the telephone poll, 56.9 percent said they “strongly support” “raising income taxes for households earning $250,000 or more per year.” Another 21.5 percent said they “somewhat support” the proposal. Slightly more than 11 percent said they “strongly oppose” it; 7.1 percent “somewhat oppose” it; and 3 percent “don’t know.”
are these precious gifts to Vermont to be kept in specially designed cases and fed, watered, and dusted with white gloves?
We are ‘keeping them around’ for what? If they aren’t paying taxes, and if they aren’t creating jobs, or giving significantly to charity every day, If they aren’t paying a reasonable share for their take of the states resources, they are as big a liability as all those freeloaders mooching off the system for their everyday needs…
Article 7th of the VT Constitution:
“That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal.”
His job is to make sure all Vermonters can afford to live here, not just the 200 richest who will be able to even if the top marginal rate goes up a few points. And it’s we in the lower brackets who do most of the propping up of the economy: put more money in our pockets, protect the safety net, then you stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Snelling and Keynes are spinning…
The statistic quoted by Governor Shumlin is simply wrong. According to the numbers posted by the VT Tax Department on its website There were actually 676 returns from taxpayers with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million and another 292 for taxpayers with incomes over $1 million in 2009. So there are actually 968 taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes over $500,000 not 200. (Remember too that there are a whole lot of perfectly legitimate ways of lowering actual income before you get to the “AGI” line on the return, e.g. IRA deductions, moving expenses, business deductions on Schedules C or E, etc. etc.).
3 more points. First, the number of higher income taxpayers in Vermont has grown, not shrunk in recent years, lending no support to the governor’s underlying premise that raising taxes on this group will make them leave. That notion is simply unsupported by the facts. (It has exceedingly thin support in any theory either, when you begin to think about it)
Second, it would be quite easy to design a tax increase for these taxpayers which would raise a substantial amount of money for Vermont, while keeping their overall tax bills LOWER than they were, say, in the Clinton years, thanks to the HUGE tax CUTS they received from the federal government (which should also raise their rates — but that’s another matter!).
Finally, third, these are precisely the taxpayers who have received the vast bulk of the national and state income growth in the last several decades. Putting it crudely, that’s where our society’s money has gone, and that’s where governments need to go to find it. at a time when we’re considering cutting services to the very poorest among us, ignoring the revenue side of the ledger is unconscionable.
If you take a cabinet post, I guess you’re duty bound to support your chief exec’s policies. But I thought this was a bit much:
(Quote from vtdigger.com.) Makes your head hurt, doesn’t it? He wants to get through difficult times “without hurting Vermonters,” but all we can do is cut services. Well, yes, that’s all you can do — if you take taxes off the table.
My question: When did Democrats adopt the Laffer Curve? And why, exactly? Especially in a state like Vermont, where they have a solid majority. I can understand John Lynch tacking to the right in NH, but why here?
The legislative leadership has bought in, though with a different rationale. Shap has issued marching orders to the committee chairs: no broad-based tax increase (well, except on sugar-sweetened beverages).
I heard him last week on Vermont Edition and his primary rationale was that if we raise taxes this year, we won’t be able to come back next year and do it again when the state’s share of federal revenues will be significantly less and we’ll have bigger holes to fill.
The question should be asked — and probably has been — about whether Democrats are going to be willing to raise taxes in an election year (read the sotto voce retort behind the question: “Yeah, right, and that’ll be next year’s excuse to keep screwing the most vulnerable: ‘Oh, no, we can’t possibly raise taxes in an election year!'”)
Shumlin’s tired excuse about waiting for the feds is the same as one (of the many) made against marriage equality in Vermont. It wasn’t good enough then, and it’s not good enough now.
NanuqFC
Plutocracy is the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy. ~ David Yamada, quoting Dictionary.com
many citizens are strapped
so why is the misc. tax bill moving so quickly toward approval?
if adopted, it will raise taxes for 55,000 low- and moderate-income filers
at the same time, it will provide $4.1 million in savings for 196 of the wealthiest people in Vermont
is this really necessary?
see my memo to Ways & Means on vtdigger
http://vtdigger.org/2011/03/18…
It’s pretty simple: the things being cut are things that benefit all but the wealthiest Vermonters.
Local communities are going to have to cope with the problems that arise – from paying police to clean up the aftermath of lacking mental health care, to making children pay via worse education and fewer good-paying options for the future.
We are being penny wise and billions foolish.
This is exactly why the Progressive Party came into being in Vermont. When the Democrats take over from Republicans, they continue the Republican’s previous plans and ignore the voters that put them in office!
Just after the election I kept hearing that ‘there’s no need for the Progressives anymore’.
Just as on the national level, the Democratic Leadership ARE Republicans in disguise. Democratic Leaders are moderate Republicans, whereas the Republicans are extremists. The Progressives are the ones that are centerists or maybe even moderate liberals.
I enjoyed voting for Shumlin, I live in Shap’s district and enjoyed voting for him too. But with their recent embrace of the extremist-right’s ‘we must not tax those that can afford to pay it’ lies, I don’t know what to think.
Of course Mayor Kiss and the Progressives in B’lngton and their crony-ism make the Progressives look just as corrupt as the rest of them, so it’s not like the Progressive Party is any better…
Have you seen Doug Hoffer’s analysis? He sent a letter to House Ways and Means, and he posted a version on VT Digger. The current tax proposal would RAISE taxes on average Vermonters and CUT them for a few wealthy ones. Back to the drawing board, Dems! Remember whose side you’re supposed to be on.
“Shumlin Sits on a Tax” it wickedly cracks me up. ‘Guess I’m easily amused.
For 26 of my 36 years I have been a life long democrat, I have worked on countless campaigns for countless people, some of whom have won and some have lost. I did and do this because I believe that “WE” stand up for those who can not stand up for them selves. I think it is a sad state of affairs when I look at the leadership on a national level, President Obama’s budget is pale, hollow and heartless. Then I look at Governor Shumlin’s budget and scratch my head. I am one of many Vermonters who gets the lip service when people are running for higher office in this state, “…Those Vermonters who are working and struggling and still can not pay their bills…” We have all heard this time and again, and many of us have worked for those seeking higher office thinking their goes someone who gets it they know how I feel.” Peter Shumlin should be ashamed to put himself out as looking out for the venerable Vermonters my self and my family included and rejecting tax increases on the top one percent who pay little to no taxes on the state level. This Budget of the Gov’s just as the one of President Obama’s is doing just what they said they would not do. “..Rebuilding this broken economy on the backs of those who can not afford it and did not break it.” Maybe I will give up organizational politics for gardening, not likely, but I will spend the next 26+ years only supporting candidates who follow up on their promise to keep an eye out for me and mine and the thousands of other Vermonters who are in the same boat, it will also mean holding those elected officials feet to the fire, Sadly this will mean supporting candidates both in and out of the Democratic Party.