Corporate Profits Are Way Up, Corporate Taxes Are Way Down
Trump's Tax Plan: Having A Laugh On Laffer
Water Bill Violate Constitution
U.S. Appeals Court Upholds 15-Miles Residency Rule For Milwaukee Cops, Emergency Workers
Hacked Records Show Bradley Foundation Taking Its Conservative Wisconsin Model National
Evaluating Trump's First 100 Days - On His Own Terms
New Study Suggests That Men Need To Drink With Friends Twice A Week To Stay Healthy
Wisconsin ranks among U.S. states with the heaviest tax burdens
Showing posts with label tax burden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax burden. Show all posts
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Wisconsin Reading
Other critics, though, say the job cuts suggest that waging war on public-sector worker unions, cutting funding for public education and proclaiming the state “open for business” won’t magically turn Wisconsin into a new economy powerhouse.
“What it says to me is that political rhetoric is irrelevant,” says Jack Norman, past research director at the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future.
Norman says companies make hiring and other decisions based on demand for their products and whether they can do business better in a different location. The effect of government policies is somewhere on the fringe, he says.
On the other hand, Norman says one could argue the cuts to public worker take-home pay and other cost-savings measures under Walker have actually made Wisconsin’s economy worse. Here is a graphic showing job growth in Wisconsin before and after he took office.
“I think we’re seeing a local version of the austerity vs. investment debate going on across the capitalist world,” says Norman. “And right now, some countries are getting rid of their austerity policies because they aren’t working.”
.jpg)
Light rail from downtown Milwaukee to Waukesha? Republicans at the state killed it.
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) commuter rail? Republicans at the state killed it.
Extending the Amtrak Hiawatha Service to Madison at 110 mph (with stops in Brookfield and Watertown)? Republicans at the state killed it.
Building a maintenance base for trainsets the state had already purchased from Talgo? Republicans at the state killed it.
Rebuilding the train shed at Milwaukee Intermodal Station? Republicans rejected federal funds to fix the non-ADA compliant shed and are now left with a situation that will cost Wisconsinites millions.
A streetcar starter system in downtown Milwaukee? Republicans killed it.
The common link? All the projects were proposed by Democrats, had a presence in the City of Milwaukee, and involved steel wheels on steel rails.
Since becoming Governor in 2010, Scott Walker will have effectively rejected over $1 billion in federal money for rail transportation projects. The loss of high-speed rail funds to connect Chicago, Madison, and Milwaukee represent $823 million. The KRM funds would have beenat least $140 million. Assuming Walker (who has made clear his opposition to the Milwaukee streetcar) ultimately supports the amendment proposed by the Joint Finance Committee, he will also be rejecting $54.9 million for the Milwaukee Streetcar, which is the last of a $289 million 1991 federal grant.
The Fiscal Bureau reports that case law is on the side of Milwaukee on the subject of residency, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts "have tended to uphold the constitutionality of the municipal residency requirements, generally siding with the public interests of governments and its policy reasons for such requirements."
Sweeping aside a 75-year-old City of Milwaukee residency ordinance and others like it, Republicans on the Legislature's budget committee voted Thursday to allow police and firefighters to live at least 15 miles outside of any community in the state and bar utility ratepayers from having to bear any costs for a proposed streetcar in the city - potentially killing the project.
On several votes Thursday, the Joint Finance Committee loaded up the state budget with policy items that had little to do with Wisconsin's finances. Many of the other policy items also limited the powers of local governments, such as a measure barring them from regulating the size of sodas.GOP fakes up a controversy over the UW system's financial reserves
Opposition Group Zones In On Walmart's New Berlin Plans (Other Walmart reading: 1, 2, 3, 4)
The Facts Are In And Paul Ryan Is Wrong
The Facts Are In And Paul Ryan Is Wrong
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Taxes
Hot off the press, the latest research from Citizens For Tax Justice:
The U.S Has A Low Corporate Tax
The U.S Has A Low Corporate Tax
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Bad Journalism Dooms Dying Newspaper
The Journal Sentinel tells us Government's Old Ways Won't Cut It Any Longer. They want us to "start by looking at the way the state governs itself." But, a much better starting-point would be to dispel the myths and misinformation (aided by poor reporting from the Journal) about government size and tax burdens.
Many alarming quotes are used for fodder in the piece. None offer any comparison or a basis for such alarm. "Everyone agree that the taxes to pay for these [services] are too high and must come down." "Wisconsin economic competitiveness is declining due to increasing tax burden." No measurement, no metric is given to support such. Just accept it so we can move forward dismantling the government and privatizing everything.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Democrats: Better On Taxes
Some interesting facts from a Bruce Murphy April 2010 post:
- Wisconsin's total tax burden is lower than it has been since 1962
- Wisconsin ranks 26th in total spending and 19th in total taxes and fees
- When taking Federal aid into account, Wisconsin's total spending ranks 32nd
- When only taxes and not fees are considered, Wisconsin ranks 14th
- Wisconsin has ranked comparatively low in total business taxes ever since the 1970s
- Governor Doyle has been considerably more frugal than Tommy Thompson (Scott Walker voted for all of Thompson's budgets)
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Torinus' Taxed Reality
John Torinus, Journal-Sentinel writer and CEO of Serigraph Inc., is at it again. He's complaining because his company can't completely avoid all forms of taxation in the State of Wisconsin. This is a well-worn theme of his.
It's really strange how business has morphed into entities that feel they have no social responsibility other than fattening their own pockets and rewarding their shareholders. One would think they might realize their long-term solvency and viability is tied to the health and performance of the country, and therefore, they might want to do all they can - pay taxes, plan long-term rather than short, minimize risky behavior - to support and strengthen such nationwide goals.
Torinus' undies are all in a bunch over an exemption from the state capital gains tax. Torinus claims this is, "one of the few tax advantages of doing business in Wisconsin." Governor Doyle took the exemption down to 40% in his budget. The Senate wanted to eliminate it altogether.
He always forgets to mention that his company, Serigraph Inc., paid no corporate income taxes in 2003 and 2004. And, I'm only speculating, has probably paid next to nothing since then. This is an onerous business tax burden? This would be laughable if the Journal-Sentinel didn't give this guy a platform to spew such nonsense.
The Tax Foundation found:
Wisconsin's 2009 Business Tax Climate Ranks 38th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.
The Institute for Wisconsin's Future released a report Exposing The Tax Hell Hoax, which attempted to put an end to this misinformation the business community continually puts forth in an attempt to pay nothing in taxes.
Torinus also smears state legislator Russ Decker, declaring him anti-business, because he doesn't feel the corporate community should be absolved of paying any taxes. Implying that, somehow, making businesses pay their fair share as proposed in the latest budget, is responsible for the 133,000 job losses over the last year. That's quite a jump in logic and honesty.
A larger counter-point can be extracted from his closing corporate talking points - we need nationalized standards of regulation and combined reporting. We need to put an end to the blackmailing site selection and the inefficiency of our zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbor business and development policies.
Torinus complains about combined reporting, without offering the reader the details of what it actually is. Presenting it simply as an additional cost to business, rather than what it really does -remove a tax loophole inserted into state tax law by business lobbyists which shifted the tax burden onto homeowners and workers.
Torinus states, "The Democrats obviously have decided to play to union leaders and to the average voter and have turned a deaf ear to business." The reality is, the Democrats are trying to enact fairness and uniformity into our tax system, helping out average workers, and trying to make businesses pay their fair share.
He then [and you can almost feel the tears in his eyes] says,"Overall, the Democratic posture toward private employers is pretty punitive." Corporate taxation has declined 47 percent over the last thirty years. Homeowners have made up this shortfall. How much more disingenuous could a corporatist be in claiming this is punitive treatment? I'm sure Torinus is shedding just as many tears for the workers in the State whom have made up for all the taxes he is allowed to avoid.
For Further Reading:
Ralph Nader wrote an interesting article regarding the legally privileged status our corporations are allowed to operate under and the trajectory of such - Avoiding Corporate Liability.
It's really strange how business has morphed into entities that feel they have no social responsibility other than fattening their own pockets and rewarding their shareholders. One would think they might realize their long-term solvency and viability is tied to the health and performance of the country, and therefore, they might want to do all they can - pay taxes, plan long-term rather than short, minimize risky behavior - to support and strengthen such nationwide goals.
Torinus' undies are all in a bunch over an exemption from the state capital gains tax. Torinus claims this is, "one of the few tax advantages of doing business in Wisconsin." Governor Doyle took the exemption down to 40% in his budget. The Senate wanted to eliminate it altogether.
He always forgets to mention that his company, Serigraph Inc., paid no corporate income taxes in 2003 and 2004. And, I'm only speculating, has probably paid next to nothing since then. This is an onerous business tax burden? This would be laughable if the Journal-Sentinel didn't give this guy a platform to spew such nonsense.
The Tax Foundation found:
Wisconsin's 2009 Business Tax Climate Ranks 38th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.
The Institute for Wisconsin's Future released a report Exposing The Tax Hell Hoax, which attempted to put an end to this misinformation the business community continually puts forth in an attempt to pay nothing in taxes.
Torinus also smears state legislator Russ Decker, declaring him anti-business, because he doesn't feel the corporate community should be absolved of paying any taxes. Implying that, somehow, making businesses pay their fair share as proposed in the latest budget, is responsible for the 133,000 job losses over the last year. That's quite a jump in logic and honesty.
A larger counter-point can be extracted from his closing corporate talking points - we need nationalized standards of regulation and combined reporting. We need to put an end to the blackmailing site selection and the inefficiency of our zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbor business and development policies.
Torinus complains about combined reporting, without offering the reader the details of what it actually is. Presenting it simply as an additional cost to business, rather than what it really does -remove a tax loophole inserted into state tax law by business lobbyists which shifted the tax burden onto homeowners and workers.
Torinus states, "The Democrats obviously have decided to play to union leaders and to the average voter and have turned a deaf ear to business." The reality is, the Democrats are trying to enact fairness and uniformity into our tax system, helping out average workers, and trying to make businesses pay their fair share.
He then [and you can almost feel the tears in his eyes] says,"Overall, the Democratic posture toward private employers is pretty punitive." Corporate taxation has declined 47 percent over the last thirty years. Homeowners have made up this shortfall. How much more disingenuous could a corporatist be in claiming this is punitive treatment? I'm sure Torinus is shedding just as many tears for the workers in the State whom have made up for all the taxes he is allowed to avoid.
For Further Reading:
Ralph Nader wrote an interesting article regarding the legally privileged status our corporations are allowed to operate under and the trajectory of such - Avoiding Corporate Liability.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Obliged to Avoid Taxation
WOW! This is powerful stupid.
To correct Ms. Burnett, considering the tax burden rather than just the highest marginal rate, as a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report found, "Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent."
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Avoidance in the States
Corporate Tax Decline & U.S. Inequality
Double Taxation Double-Speak
How Progessive is the U.S. Federal Tax System?
Most Firms Pay No Income Tax
To correct Ms. Burnett, considering the tax burden rather than just the highest marginal rate, as a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report found, "Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent."
For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Avoidance in the States
Corporate Tax Decline & U.S. Inequality
Double Taxation Double-Speak
How Progessive is the U.S. Federal Tax System?
Most Firms Pay No Income Tax
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Just Society
Some thoughts on wage equity, fairness, efficiency, and our societal structure during this period of budget cuts, cost-benefit analysis, and general search for cost efficiency:
I feel an honest day’s work deserves and honest day’s pay. Yet those with the most back-breaking, demeaning jobs are also paid the most demeaning wages. While those performing in the most reprehensible and unproductive ways (Citigroup, A.I.G., et al) are paid the most spectacular sums.
The wealthiest never have to worry about their health care. And they don't seem to realize the connection between their earnings and a healthy workforce. Single-payer or universal health care would allow a more healthy and productive workforce by enabling workers to see a doctor whenever they feel "under the weather," rather than struggling through illness, missing more work, and, in the end, losing more productivity than they otherwise would have. This would also help decrease the present astronomical cost of health care.
Next, we should strengthen Social Security, making it pay more of a livable stipend for retirees. This could be accomplished by removing the cap on the amount of income taxable for Social Security. Alongside this, we should reinvigorate the pension system as a supplement to Social Security. And, if workers chose, they can also put aside a percentage of their income in 401Ks. This would, no doubt, improve the stability of retirement for a majority of citizens. It would also permit many to retire sooner, allowing younger workers earlier entrance to decent paying jobs. This too would help cut costs. New workers are not paid as much as someone who has been on the job for thirty years.
Another easy cost-cutting measure is the removal of the bloated fringe benefits that now seem to come with every two-bit "management" position. Unless a person is on-call, needs to make communication every hour or so, needs to drive to various locations daily for their work, etc. – car and cell phone allowances are perks that could be immediately slashed from public and private budgets. Most working people already have a cell phone and a car. Those that drive occasionally can turn in an expense report for the miles of gas they use at those times. The same can be done when one makes a business call from their cell phone that is absolutely necessary.
We have deluded ourselves into the belief that we cannot get by without every pampering of modern-day society in every moment of our daily lives. Every manager, executive, council man, and the like, does not need a car allowance, an expense account, a business-paid cell phone, and on and on. This is terribly inefficient and encourages wastefulness. This is especially true in a country that preaches to the rest of the world about how cost-effective we are.
Next, there are managers and executives that are making five or more times as much as their underlings, usually simply because of seniority. Now, I agree seniority, time, and experience should count for something. But should they even make twice as much? The public sector seems to manage this somewhat well – because they have to directly answer to taxpayers. But the private sector is out of control (even though the public sector heavily supports them through exemptions, tax breaks, subsidies, etc.). What they add to the real economy in no way justifies their pay. How (by anyone thinking sanely) can millions of dollars in bonuses be given to the workers of a company that is essentially bankrupt (hello A.I.G.)? How is this justified?
The same can be said of most of the private sector which, unbeknownst to most citizens, is indirectly massively financially supported by taxpayers: oil companies, sports teams, the entertainment industry, Wall Street – to name a few.
We’ve essentially structured our own warped caste system here in America. The majority of workers – the 85 percent making under $100,000 – must continually pay more in health care costs or go without, take pay cuts or see no wage increase at all, and continually (due to our volatile economy) fear for the security of their job. Conversely, those at the top of the ladder are continually subsidized, given bonuses, bailed out, allowed to take huge pay-days (even when they oversee a fall in their company’s stock value), and make obscene amounts of money, that their workers (the ones actually allowing them to exist) can only dream of.
The solutions to this travesty are not complicated. It would involve the Masters of the Universe trimming back on their decadent lifestyles and redistributing some of the bounty, but since they also control governments and world markets, they will not allow this to happen. This is class warfare. Until people realize this and use their representative democracy to install politicians and policies that regulate and redistribute for a more equitable society, we will continue to see this volatile, topsy-turvy economy that benefits the few while punishing the rest.
Until we curb corporate greed, workers will be forced to make all the sacrifices and take all the hits. Until corporations are made to pay their fair share of taxes, workers will continue to bear the cost of a semblance of a just society. Until corporations are regulated in a manner consistent with our principles, they will continue to pillage and plunder, reaping all the rewards while leaving all their mistakes to be cleaned up by the taxpayers.
I feel an honest day’s work deserves and honest day’s pay. Yet those with the most back-breaking, demeaning jobs are also paid the most demeaning wages. While those performing in the most reprehensible and unproductive ways (Citigroup, A.I.G., et al) are paid the most spectacular sums.
The wealthiest never have to worry about their health care. And they don't seem to realize the connection between their earnings and a healthy workforce. Single-payer or universal health care would allow a more healthy and productive workforce by enabling workers to see a doctor whenever they feel "under the weather," rather than struggling through illness, missing more work, and, in the end, losing more productivity than they otherwise would have. This would also help decrease the present astronomical cost of health care.
Next, we should strengthen Social Security, making it pay more of a livable stipend for retirees. This could be accomplished by removing the cap on the amount of income taxable for Social Security. Alongside this, we should reinvigorate the pension system as a supplement to Social Security. And, if workers chose, they can also put aside a percentage of their income in 401Ks. This would, no doubt, improve the stability of retirement for a majority of citizens. It would also permit many to retire sooner, allowing younger workers earlier entrance to decent paying jobs. This too would help cut costs. New workers are not paid as much as someone who has been on the job for thirty years.
Another easy cost-cutting measure is the removal of the bloated fringe benefits that now seem to come with every two-bit "management" position. Unless a person is on-call, needs to make communication every hour or so, needs to drive to various locations daily for their work, etc. – car and cell phone allowances are perks that could be immediately slashed from public and private budgets. Most working people already have a cell phone and a car. Those that drive occasionally can turn in an expense report for the miles of gas they use at those times. The same can be done when one makes a business call from their cell phone that is absolutely necessary.
We have deluded ourselves into the belief that we cannot get by without every pampering of modern-day society in every moment of our daily lives. Every manager, executive, council man, and the like, does not need a car allowance, an expense account, a business-paid cell phone, and on and on. This is terribly inefficient and encourages wastefulness. This is especially true in a country that preaches to the rest of the world about how cost-effective we are.
Next, there are managers and executives that are making five or more times as much as their underlings, usually simply because of seniority. Now, I agree seniority, time, and experience should count for something. But should they even make twice as much? The public sector seems to manage this somewhat well – because they have to directly answer to taxpayers. But the private sector is out of control (even though the public sector heavily supports them through exemptions, tax breaks, subsidies, etc.). What they add to the real economy in no way justifies their pay. How (by anyone thinking sanely) can millions of dollars in bonuses be given to the workers of a company that is essentially bankrupt (hello A.I.G.)? How is this justified?
The same can be said of most of the private sector which, unbeknownst to most citizens, is indirectly massively financially supported by taxpayers: oil companies, sports teams, the entertainment industry, Wall Street – to name a few.
We’ve essentially structured our own warped caste system here in America. The majority of workers – the 85 percent making under $100,000 – must continually pay more in health care costs or go without, take pay cuts or see no wage increase at all, and continually (due to our volatile economy) fear for the security of their job. Conversely, those at the top of the ladder are continually subsidized, given bonuses, bailed out, allowed to take huge pay-days (even when they oversee a fall in their company’s stock value), and make obscene amounts of money, that their workers (the ones actually allowing them to exist) can only dream of.
The solutions to this travesty are not complicated. It would involve the Masters of the Universe trimming back on their decadent lifestyles and redistributing some of the bounty, but since they also control governments and world markets, they will not allow this to happen. This is class warfare. Until people realize this and use their representative democracy to install politicians and policies that regulate and redistribute for a more equitable society, we will continue to see this volatile, topsy-turvy economy that benefits the few while punishing the rest.
Until we curb corporate greed, workers will be forced to make all the sacrifices and take all the hits. Until corporations are made to pay their fair share of taxes, workers will continue to bear the cost of a semblance of a just society. Until corporations are regulated in a manner consistent with our principles, they will continue to pillage and plunder, reaping all the rewards while leaving all their mistakes to be cleaned up by the taxpayers.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tax Perspective
Here's a couple of interesting articles on taxes, money, debt, and the tax burden.
More Debt Bubbles
Richly Undeserved
More Debt Bubbles
Richly Undeserved
Friday, April 17, 2009
Shifting Tax Burden
How much of a tax burden do Wisconsin corporation's tax havens unfairly displace onto regular tax payers? $1,673,906,154
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Inflation & Valuations
I know people don't enjoy paying property taxes. But like any other investment or purchase, one must consider taxes (along with other expenses) when weighing the pros and cons of buying a property.
One factor that seems to slip most everyday homeowners' minds is inflation. This depreciates your home's value a few percentage points each year. Everything generally tends to cost slightly more each year. This process automatically lowers the values of properties. So even in the years when your property assessment valuation remained the same as previous years, you were actually losing money due to inflation. Some of this is offset during an appreciating market. But this can also be exacerbated during a downturn in the market, such as we're experiencing now.
Now one can always say, "I want the assessed value low so that my taxes are lower. I can always ask whatever I want, and get more than that, when and if I sell."
That is a bubble market mentality. "I can always get above the assessed value. Real estate doesn't depreciate." Savvy buyers, and those whom have been brought back to reality by our recent financial upheaval, would not pay a large amount above an assessed valuation - since it's based on sales of comparable properties. Hoping to pay a property tax amount below a property's fair share and then reaping large rewards later upon a sale is: 1) mostly a pipedream, 2) unfair to those paying their fair share, 3) hurtful to needed programs funded by property taxes, and 4) selfish.
Just something to think about as people complain about the [supposedly overly high] value of their properties. Do owners actually want to see their values decrease? It would be analogous to wanting your stocks to stay low in value (or decline) so you don't have to pay capital gains tax. Taxes are the price of civilization and we all need to be more aware of such when we make our investments and purchases...rather than complaining after we've overextended (bought too much house) ourselves.
For Further Reading:
Assessment v Property Tax
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Wisconsin Tax Truths in the Land of Tax Trickery
One factor that seems to slip most everyday homeowners' minds is inflation. This depreciates your home's value a few percentage points each year. Everything generally tends to cost slightly more each year. This process automatically lowers the values of properties. So even in the years when your property assessment valuation remained the same as previous years, you were actually losing money due to inflation. Some of this is offset during an appreciating market. But this can also be exacerbated during a downturn in the market, such as we're experiencing now.
Now one can always say, "I want the assessed value low so that my taxes are lower. I can always ask whatever I want, and get more than that, when and if I sell."
That is a bubble market mentality. "I can always get above the assessed value. Real estate doesn't depreciate." Savvy buyers, and those whom have been brought back to reality by our recent financial upheaval, would not pay a large amount above an assessed valuation - since it's based on sales of comparable properties. Hoping to pay a property tax amount below a property's fair share and then reaping large rewards later upon a sale is: 1) mostly a pipedream, 2) unfair to those paying their fair share, 3) hurtful to needed programs funded by property taxes, and 4) selfish.
Just something to think about as people complain about the [supposedly overly high] value of their properties. Do owners actually want to see their values decrease? It would be analogous to wanting your stocks to stay low in value (or decline) so you don't have to pay capital gains tax. Taxes are the price of civilization and we all need to be more aware of such when we make our investments and purchases...rather than complaining after we've overextended (bought too much house) ourselves.
For Further Reading:
Assessment v Property Tax
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Wisconsin Tax Truths in the Land of Tax Trickery
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wisconsin Courts (Again) Rule for Business
Wisconsin courts have again sided with business and have taken a blow at fair tax collection and a fair tax burden.
Marie Rohde of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported, with stunning lack of breadth and diveristy of opinion, on a Milwaukee property assessment ordinance that was ruled unconstitutional.
The article had the old worn out tone of "government can't do anything right or efficiently" running through it. And, to prove such, they spoke with business and industry lobbyists directly affected. Hardly an objective analysis. Insinuating that the City of Milwaukee pushed for an ordinance that would, "...deprive citizens of equal protection of the law." Big bad nefarious government is at it again, trying to take away your money and rights.
The basic story of the ordinance is this: when a property owner decides to object to the valuation of his/her property, the first time they present/argue their case (in front of a Board of Review; a quasi-legal authority, a grade below a circuit court) they must make the full effort to totally explain their position and introduce all evidence to substantiate their opinion.
Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Jean DiMotto's ruling statement, "The law created favored and disfavored classes by allowing municipalities to enact ordinances that limit taxpayers' rights to the court," is wildly misguided and disingenuous. First, the law applies the same to all in a municipality. There are different laws, exemptions, tax rates, among other variances, between municipalities and states all over the country. Let's use the tax rate for an example: if a company feels the taxes are onerous, they will relocate their business. Would we instead say that an increased tax rate is unconstitutional because it would put more of a burden on the company than if they were located in Town X? Of course not. And, secondly, it doesn't limit rights, it sets the boundaries by which assessment disputes can be solved in an efficient and timely manner.
If a property owner feels an assessment is wrong, by objecting they are forcing the assessor to make a full case to support their opinion of value...why shouldn't the taxpayer have to do the same? No Board of Review case is scheduled before all the evidence is on the table and the assessor and property owner have gone back and forth exchanging information. The ordinance was an attempt to make business think equitably, with forethought, and pertinently. As property owners divulge more income and expense information, assessors correct errors and make any necessary adjustments to valuation. In this process, oftentimes going before a Board of Review will be unnecessary.
Basically, private enterprises want to give away as little actual information as possible, whilst getting complete information from the City supporting their case. The private actors then try to use this information to mold, mask, and artificially conceal their liabilities. Step-by-step through the court system (the Board of Review, the Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals) their objective is to continually raise doubt and muddle the discussion regarding the evidence presented by the City, whilst being able to introduce (new) doctored evidence to support their valuation. It's kind of like having the ability to change the rules as the game is being played. The ordinance was an attempt to end such.
But, if the case must be heard before the Board of Review, the assessor comes fully prepared with his/her report supporting the valuation. Why can't the taxpayer do the same? Time isn't an issue (within reason). Cases can be postponed, allowing plenty of time for a taxpayer to prepare. (Objections are filed in May. Cases are usually, at the earliest, heard in September. Four to five months of preparatory time is not enough?) But one must also feel that if someone objects, before doing so this person would have some evidence, comparable sales, or some other information which leads them to believe the assessment is wrong. After all, as chapter seventy of the Wisconsin State Statutes make clear, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer not the assessor. The Manual also makes clear the heirarchy for valuing property. Nebulous claims about "the market" and weak comparisons to the neighbor's recently sold (although completely different style home) dwelling will not do.
Oftentimes objections are filed just for the sake of objecting. It's part of some business accounting strategies. And this is an extreme waste of time and resources for all concerned.
Are you objecting because you studiously follow market trends and because you've crunched the numbers? Or, are you objecting just to drag it out in the hopes of some type of settlement, some type of break? Too often the latter is the case.
It's also laughable that this ruling is portrayed as being about fairness and protecting equal rights for taxpayers. This is about corporate and business interests. They want every legal advantage they can get in the tax code so they can pay less. Considering corporate taxation has been dwindling over the last thirty years (corporate taxes used to represent 25-30 percent of state income, now it's down to 5-10 percent) and the tax burden is being pushed more and more onto homeowners, this ruling adds insult to injury for residential homeowners.
Marie Rohde of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported, with stunning lack of breadth and diveristy of opinion, on a Milwaukee property assessment ordinance that was ruled unconstitutional.
The article had the old worn out tone of "government can't do anything right or efficiently" running through it. And, to prove such, they spoke with business and industry lobbyists directly affected. Hardly an objective analysis. Insinuating that the City of Milwaukee pushed for an ordinance that would, "...deprive citizens of equal protection of the law." Big bad nefarious government is at it again, trying to take away your money and rights.
The basic story of the ordinance is this: when a property owner decides to object to the valuation of his/her property, the first time they present/argue their case (in front of a Board of Review; a quasi-legal authority, a grade below a circuit court) they must make the full effort to totally explain their position and introduce all evidence to substantiate their opinion.
Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Jean DiMotto's ruling statement, "The law created favored and disfavored classes by allowing municipalities to enact ordinances that limit taxpayers' rights to the court," is wildly misguided and disingenuous. First, the law applies the same to all in a municipality. There are different laws, exemptions, tax rates, among other variances, between municipalities and states all over the country. Let's use the tax rate for an example: if a company feels the taxes are onerous, they will relocate their business. Would we instead say that an increased tax rate is unconstitutional because it would put more of a burden on the company than if they were located in Town X? Of course not. And, secondly, it doesn't limit rights, it sets the boundaries by which assessment disputes can be solved in an efficient and timely manner.
If a property owner feels an assessment is wrong, by objecting they are forcing the assessor to make a full case to support their opinion of value...why shouldn't the taxpayer have to do the same? No Board of Review case is scheduled before all the evidence is on the table and the assessor and property owner have gone back and forth exchanging information. The ordinance was an attempt to make business think equitably, with forethought, and pertinently. As property owners divulge more income and expense information, assessors correct errors and make any necessary adjustments to valuation. In this process, oftentimes going before a Board of Review will be unnecessary.
Basically, private enterprises want to give away as little actual information as possible, whilst getting complete information from the City supporting their case. The private actors then try to use this information to mold, mask, and artificially conceal their liabilities. Step-by-step through the court system (the Board of Review, the Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals) their objective is to continually raise doubt and muddle the discussion regarding the evidence presented by the City, whilst being able to introduce (new) doctored evidence to support their valuation. It's kind of like having the ability to change the rules as the game is being played. The ordinance was an attempt to end such.
But, if the case must be heard before the Board of Review, the assessor comes fully prepared with his/her report supporting the valuation. Why can't the taxpayer do the same? Time isn't an issue (within reason). Cases can be postponed, allowing plenty of time for a taxpayer to prepare. (Objections are filed in May. Cases are usually, at the earliest, heard in September. Four to five months of preparatory time is not enough?) But one must also feel that if someone objects, before doing so this person would have some evidence, comparable sales, or some other information which leads them to believe the assessment is wrong. After all, as chapter seventy of the Wisconsin State Statutes make clear, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer not the assessor. The Manual also makes clear the heirarchy for valuing property. Nebulous claims about "the market" and weak comparisons to the neighbor's recently sold (although completely different style home) dwelling will not do.
Oftentimes objections are filed just for the sake of objecting. It's part of some business accounting strategies. And this is an extreme waste of time and resources for all concerned.
Are you objecting because you studiously follow market trends and because you've crunched the numbers? Or, are you objecting just to drag it out in the hopes of some type of settlement, some type of break? Too often the latter is the case.
It's also laughable that this ruling is portrayed as being about fairness and protecting equal rights for taxpayers. This is about corporate and business interests. They want every legal advantage they can get in the tax code so they can pay less. Considering corporate taxation has been dwindling over the last thirty years (corporate taxes used to represent 25-30 percent of state income, now it's down to 5-10 percent) and the tax burden is being pushed more and more onto homeowners, this ruling adds insult to injury for residential homeowners.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Measuring Tax Burden by Progressivity and Social Justice
Two reasons invariably come up when discussing the tax burden: who pays and why they should or shouldn’t pay. “The richest – top 1% - pay a whopping amount of the total as it is. The amount they pay is more than what any other quintile or percentage grouping pays.” Another variation, “The total percentage paid by the top 1% as a whole is the largest. The richest – the top 1% - pay 30 percent of total collections, therefore, they pay more than their fair share.” [Implying that because their percentage paid is higher than the total number (percentage) they represent.]
Conversely, this is wrong for two reasons:
The truest way to measure progressivity/ regressivity or fairness is by one’s percentage of their total income that goes to taxes (tax incidence). This gives the most realistic sense to the true burden taxation imposes upon one.
It is also a matter of social justice. Whether you have $1 million or $1 billion dollars to your name, you’re living pretty well. Increasing the taxes on such a fortunate soul (raking in $1 million per year) by one percent would result in $10,000 [yes, I know, scary redistribution]. Now, don’t you think our neighborhoods, streets, schools and a host of other infrastructural, institutional, and socioeconomic factors would be better if we instead dispersed that $10,000 amongst, let’s say, 5 people, giving them each a $2,000 tax-break infusion? Their burden is eased a bit, they’re happier, they shop for a few more things, and they eat out and spend more money in their local economy [probably at one of the wealthy taxpayers’ establishments].
Or, this increased revenue could allow the government to implement public works projects, with unionized labor, to repair roads and bridges, electric grids and water systems, and to create regional light rail systems, among a host of other environmentally sustainable projects. This could establish good green jobs and pave the way for future growth and development, whilst also helping to prime the pump and get us out of the nasty economic doldrums we're in now.
This was the case during the Great Compression after WWII when a single breadwinner could provide for a family. Growth and productivity soared during this period. And, the U.S. was a shining beacon on the hill, an example for the world.
Business investment has not improved during the latest round of tax cuts. It actually increased when Bill Clinton raised taxes – alongside this the economy boomed. Spreading the wealth seems to be good policy for owners and workers alike. It allows higher levels of demand to be sustained, lessening the volatility of the market, leading to more stable growth. We might have averted our present disaster if we had followed the recommendations of some officials (Sheila Bair of the FDIC and Brooksley Born formerly of CFTC) and tightened regulation over the opaque financial instruments that took strong growth and tried to put it on steroids, ever increasing risk.
It just seems wrong to me that people who have more money than they will ever be able to spend gain no solace from knowing that just having a smaller percentage of income in their account(s) could lead to so many social improvements. Plenty of robber barons (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Cudahy, Zilber), most in their twilight years, realized they had benefited well from Society’s institutions and were therefore obliged to give back. It is sad the paradigms of greed is good and get all you can have won out over a more peaceful shared prosperity.
Conversely, this is wrong for two reasons:
The truest way to measure progressivity/ regressivity or fairness is by one’s percentage of their total income that goes to taxes (tax incidence). This gives the most realistic sense to the true burden taxation imposes upon one.
It is also a matter of social justice. Whether you have $1 million or $1 billion dollars to your name, you’re living pretty well. Increasing the taxes on such a fortunate soul (raking in $1 million per year) by one percent would result in $10,000 [yes, I know, scary redistribution]. Now, don’t you think our neighborhoods, streets, schools and a host of other infrastructural, institutional, and socioeconomic factors would be better if we instead dispersed that $10,000 amongst, let’s say, 5 people, giving them each a $2,000 tax-break infusion? Their burden is eased a bit, they’re happier, they shop for a few more things, and they eat out and spend more money in their local economy [probably at one of the wealthy taxpayers’ establishments].
Or, this increased revenue could allow the government to implement public works projects, with unionized labor, to repair roads and bridges, electric grids and water systems, and to create regional light rail systems, among a host of other environmentally sustainable projects. This could establish good green jobs and pave the way for future growth and development, whilst also helping to prime the pump and get us out of the nasty economic doldrums we're in now.
This was the case during the Great Compression after WWII when a single breadwinner could provide for a family. Growth and productivity soared during this period. And, the U.S. was a shining beacon on the hill, an example for the world.
Business investment has not improved during the latest round of tax cuts. It actually increased when Bill Clinton raised taxes – alongside this the economy boomed. Spreading the wealth seems to be good policy for owners and workers alike. It allows higher levels of demand to be sustained, lessening the volatility of the market, leading to more stable growth. We might have averted our present disaster if we had followed the recommendations of some officials (Sheila Bair of the FDIC and Brooksley Born formerly of CFTC) and tightened regulation over the opaque financial instruments that took strong growth and tried to put it on steroids, ever increasing risk.
It just seems wrong to me that people who have more money than they will ever be able to spend gain no solace from knowing that just having a smaller percentage of income in their account(s) could lead to so many social improvements. Plenty of robber barons (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Cudahy, Zilber), most in their twilight years, realized they had benefited well from Society’s institutions and were therefore obliged to give back. It is sad the paradigms of greed is good and get all you can have won out over a more peaceful shared prosperity.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Reallocation Better Than Cuts
Here's why a reallocation of the property tax burden (onto those more able to pay) is better than merely slashing budgets and programs:
Property Tax Limitation in the Senate Housing Bill is Unnecessary, Impractical, and Likely to Cause Harm.
And here's why the wealthy can afford to pay more:
The Great Tax Shift.
Property Tax Limitation in the Senate Housing Bill is Unnecessary, Impractical, and Likely to Cause Harm.
And here's why the wealthy can afford to pay more:
The Great Tax Shift.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Tax Fairness & Uniformity
Property tax levies rising 6.1 percent in southeastern Wisconsin in 2008 have the newspapers and anti-tax mouthpieces spouting their misdirected and confused rhetoric again.
First, spending at the state-level has not been exploding over the last few decades as these crusaders would like us to believe.
Second, discarding most property tax exemptions (which amount to one-third of all property) would be a boon to most state budgets and a relief to many taxpayers.
Third, trashing numerous corporate tax-code scams and collecting the fair share of taxes from the business community would be another infusion of funds into state and local coffers.
Fourth, the federal government could step in and aid the states.
Taxes are the price of civilization. We all depend on the services and amenities that taxes pay for. The answer isn't the race-to-the-bottom, discard the services that make us desirable cities and states mantra we hear from the talking-heads. We need to reinstate fairness into our tax code so that our progressive tradition is fulfilled and those with the most means and whom benefit the most from such an enviable way of life pay their fair share.
Otherwise, our society will continue its gradual descent into mediocrity with only the very well-off (whom most of the tax code already benefits) being able to afford and enjoy a respectable standard-of-living. If we allow public services to be cut to such a drastic degree, only the wealthy will be able to afford many of these public-goods, that we cherish in our everyday lives, in the private market.
For Further Reading:
Budget Cuts or Tax Increase at the State Level: Which is Preferable During an Economic Downturn.
State Expenditure Growth Slowing.
State Spending as Percent of GDP.
First, spending at the state-level has not been exploding over the last few decades as these crusaders would like us to believe.
Second, discarding most property tax exemptions (which amount to one-third of all property) would be a boon to most state budgets and a relief to many taxpayers.
Third, trashing numerous corporate tax-code scams and collecting the fair share of taxes from the business community would be another infusion of funds into state and local coffers.
Fourth, the federal government could step in and aid the states.
Taxes are the price of civilization. We all depend on the services and amenities that taxes pay for. The answer isn't the race-to-the-bottom, discard the services that make us desirable cities and states mantra we hear from the talking-heads. We need to reinstate fairness into our tax code so that our progressive tradition is fulfilled and those with the most means and whom benefit the most from such an enviable way of life pay their fair share.
Otherwise, our society will continue its gradual descent into mediocrity with only the very well-off (whom most of the tax code already benefits) being able to afford and enjoy a respectable standard-of-living. If we allow public services to be cut to such a drastic degree, only the wealthy will be able to afford many of these public-goods, that we cherish in our everyday lives, in the private market.
For Further Reading:
Budget Cuts or Tax Increase at the State Level: Which is Preferable During an Economic Downturn.
State Expenditure Growth Slowing.
State Spending as Percent of GDP.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Tax Burden Shifting: Exemptions
Exemptions are a subtle scourge on our public institutions and a devious tax avoidance scheme written into state statutes by corporate lawyers working alongside on-the-take state legislators. This corporate welfare is yet another scam of planners, site selection experts, business interests, and others who falsely claim that without such an exemption certain businesses would be unable to accomplish a host of things -- remain profitable, support a certain level of workforce, etc. The key to getting an exemption is showing your business is benevolent in some fashion or another. But, as with such vague statutory language, this loose definition has been twisted to the benefit of businesses being able to avoid taxes with far-fetched explanations of what makes them benevolent, and also unfairly subsidizes them competitively against another similar business not receiving the exemption. Another way to get an exemption is to simply have your lawyers and lobbyists pressure state legislators to simply write it into the statutes (sections 70.11, 70.111, and 70.112).
Nearly a third of all the property in the City of Milwaukee is exempt -- roughly $6 billion worth of property that is not taxed! Barbara Miner informs, "Wisconsin now has approximately 16,000 exempt private properties, with a value of $21.7 billion."
The Wisconsin Department of Revenue, in State Tax Incentives For Economic Development In Wisconsin, details the numerous tax incentives available in Wisconsin.
Annysa Johnson reports, “The Congressional Budget Office estimated the value of tax exemptions for hospitals nationally in 2002 at $12.6 billion.” A report by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future found, “billions of dollars worth of property goes untaxed because it is owned by not-for-profit hospitals and medical centers…many of these hospitals generate millions of dollars in annual income and pay their top executives salaries comparable to corporate executives.”
The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation explains, “Commerical customers with residential electric or natural gas [a storefront with an apartment above it] are tax-exempt from November through April for the portion of energy used for residential purposes…Non-profit organizations [operated for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals] are tax-exempt year round for electric and natural gas use.”
Credit Unions are tax-exempt institutions. As even the Wisconsin Bankers Association states, “To the extent that credit unions use their tax exemption to lower home lending rates, federal and state income tax exemptions are subsidizing borrowing by high-income households.” They find this exemption will cost, over the next 10 years, $400 million in Wisconsin, and $31 billion nationally.
A few of those with property tax exemptions written right into the state statutes are: machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, farm inventories, computer hardware and software, and tax increment districts. In a recent decision, City of LaCrosse v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue and Gundersen Clinic, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission ruled that a host of categories of computerized medical equipment is exempt from property tax.
Those enjoying sales tax exemptions: manufacturing machinery and equipment; manufacturing consumables; pollution abatement, waste treatment and recycling equipment; production fuel and electricity. Steven Walters notes, “The sales tax [in Wisconsin] is expected to bring in $4.2 billion this year. It is the second biggest source of state tax collections, trailing only the $6.4 billion personal income tax.” He also lists the costs of certain exemptions: computer services $136 million; legal services $113 million; advertising $103 million; personnel services $79.4 million; architectural engineering and surveying services $69.2 million; management consulting and public relations $64.1 million; and accounting $59.5 million.
The importance of a good manufacturing base to our economy is obvious, as is the importance of recycling to our environment, etc. But if the market has decided that these aren’t important things and the government must support these endeavors, then we should at least also be guaranteeing these are well-paid jobs with health care and pension plans. If we’re going to be in the business (of whichever business we might be subsidizing), we should have it on our terms and have these be solid jobs that allow the workers to be happy, productive, and fairly compensated. Consequently, they are able to support their local economy (through purchases). This multiplier effect of locally earned and spent money ripples through the economy and creates jobs and stable communities.
There are a host of “business incentives” (welfare for the rich) in Wisconsin: Economic Development Zones with development zone credits, Tax Incremental Districts with infrastructure improvements financed by tax increments, and Technology Zones with tax credits for high-technology businesses locating in the zone. Granted some of this development would not occur without the subsidy. Therefore, that is a good investment if it occurs in a blighted or declining area. But sadly too often developers, real estate magnates, and builders use this welfare to line their pockets rather than making a catalytic investment (reproducing through the local economy), which would be much better for the long-term health of their city and economy. They build whatever is easiest and will return the quickest buck. They're looking to line their pockets with the largest amount of money in the shortest period of time. They're not trying to develop a sustainable, bustling, safe city environment.
The inequity in the tax burden is at a breaking point. Workers cannot bear the brunt of this burden much longer. The economy is in a recession as this is being written, and we may be headed for another 1929-style depression. Corporations have written the tax code to their benefit. Their share of taxes is minuscule and declining. Their, in essence, looting of public dollars has ramifications on our ability to maintain: parks, libraries, public transportation, sewage, wetlands, pollution, poverty, and employment – to name a few. It has ramifications on everything we do and how we live.
This is the workers' money they are stealing. Without the productive capacity of all the workers in the world applying their craft there would be no product or service to sell. They make the profits and standard of living we all deserve possible. Sadly, they are being exploited. I’m sure we’d all prefer a higher floor for the least among us, rather than a subsidized ceiling where the already-rich take from those working their asses off to make ends meet. Our inattentiveness and inaction with regards to this growing inequality is to our own detriment. Even the middle class is now being squeezed into a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle. This is a dismal fact and an abomination for a wealthy, highly-educated country like America.
Why is this? To recapitulate -- about a third of the land and property the rich/well-represented own is exempt from taxation. Capital gains, which are mostly claimed by the rich, are taxed much lower than income. The tax code has a hoard of loopholes, deductions, and write-offs, which benefit the rich. So, the basic story is: workers are working longer, harder, and producing more; but they aren’t sharing in the gains. And all those gains the CEOs and executives are making off Labor’s production are not being completely or fairly taxed, if at all. So we’re making less and having to pay for more while a few greedy bastards stockpile the treasure of our exploited labor.
Jack Norman calculates, “Thirty years ago, residential property accounted for half of all state property taxes. Today, homeowners pay 70 percent of all property taxes, as the business contributions have dropped…The poorest homeowners (incomes below $15,600) paid more than 14 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The richest homeowners (incomes above $70,000) paid about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes.”
Fred Mohs, former regent with the University of Wisconsin System currently on the board with Madison Gas and Electric, in Barbara Miner's Tax Exempt Milwaukee Magazine article, contends, "The only people left to pay were the peasants and the merchant class, and they eventually solved the problem by cutting off the heads of a lot of people."
Nearly a third of all the property in the City of Milwaukee is exempt -- roughly $6 billion worth of property that is not taxed! Barbara Miner informs, "Wisconsin now has approximately 16,000 exempt private properties, with a value of $21.7 billion."
The Wisconsin Department of Revenue, in State Tax Incentives For Economic Development In Wisconsin, details the numerous tax incentives available in Wisconsin.
Annysa Johnson reports, “The Congressional Budget Office estimated the value of tax exemptions for hospitals nationally in 2002 at $12.6 billion.” A report by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future found, “billions of dollars worth of property goes untaxed because it is owned by not-for-profit hospitals and medical centers…many of these hospitals generate millions of dollars in annual income and pay their top executives salaries comparable to corporate executives.”
The Wisconsin Public Service Corporation explains, “Commerical customers with residential electric or natural gas [a storefront with an apartment above it] are tax-exempt from November through April for the portion of energy used for residential purposes…Non-profit organizations [operated for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals] are tax-exempt year round for electric and natural gas use.”
Credit Unions are tax-exempt institutions. As even the Wisconsin Bankers Association states, “To the extent that credit unions use their tax exemption to lower home lending rates, federal and state income tax exemptions are subsidizing borrowing by high-income households.” They find this exemption will cost, over the next 10 years, $400 million in Wisconsin, and $31 billion nationally.
A few of those with property tax exemptions written right into the state statutes are: machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, farm inventories, computer hardware and software, and tax increment districts. In a recent decision, City of LaCrosse v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue and Gundersen Clinic, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission ruled that a host of categories of computerized medical equipment is exempt from property tax.
Those enjoying sales tax exemptions: manufacturing machinery and equipment; manufacturing consumables; pollution abatement, waste treatment and recycling equipment; production fuel and electricity. Steven Walters notes, “The sales tax [in Wisconsin] is expected to bring in $4.2 billion this year. It is the second biggest source of state tax collections, trailing only the $6.4 billion personal income tax.” He also lists the costs of certain exemptions: computer services $136 million; legal services $113 million; advertising $103 million; personnel services $79.4 million; architectural engineering and surveying services $69.2 million; management consulting and public relations $64.1 million; and accounting $59.5 million.
The importance of a good manufacturing base to our economy is obvious, as is the importance of recycling to our environment, etc. But if the market has decided that these aren’t important things and the government must support these endeavors, then we should at least also be guaranteeing these are well-paid jobs with health care and pension plans. If we’re going to be in the business (of whichever business we might be subsidizing), we should have it on our terms and have these be solid jobs that allow the workers to be happy, productive, and fairly compensated. Consequently, they are able to support their local economy (through purchases). This multiplier effect of locally earned and spent money ripples through the economy and creates jobs and stable communities.
There are a host of “business incentives” (welfare for the rich) in Wisconsin: Economic Development Zones with development zone credits, Tax Incremental Districts with infrastructure improvements financed by tax increments, and Technology Zones with tax credits for high-technology businesses locating in the zone. Granted some of this development would not occur without the subsidy. Therefore, that is a good investment if it occurs in a blighted or declining area. But sadly too often developers, real estate magnates, and builders use this welfare to line their pockets rather than making a catalytic investment (reproducing through the local economy), which would be much better for the long-term health of their city and economy. They build whatever is easiest and will return the quickest buck. They're looking to line their pockets with the largest amount of money in the shortest period of time. They're not trying to develop a sustainable, bustling, safe city environment.
The inequity in the tax burden is at a breaking point. Workers cannot bear the brunt of this burden much longer. The economy is in a recession as this is being written, and we may be headed for another 1929-style depression. Corporations have written the tax code to their benefit. Their share of taxes is minuscule and declining. Their, in essence, looting of public dollars has ramifications on our ability to maintain: parks, libraries, public transportation, sewage, wetlands, pollution, poverty, and employment – to name a few. It has ramifications on everything we do and how we live.
This is the workers' money they are stealing. Without the productive capacity of all the workers in the world applying their craft there would be no product or service to sell. They make the profits and standard of living we all deserve possible. Sadly, they are being exploited. I’m sure we’d all prefer a higher floor for the least among us, rather than a subsidized ceiling where the already-rich take from those working their asses off to make ends meet. Our inattentiveness and inaction with regards to this growing inequality is to our own detriment. Even the middle class is now being squeezed into a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle. This is a dismal fact and an abomination for a wealthy, highly-educated country like America.
Why is this? To recapitulate -- about a third of the land and property the rich/well-represented own is exempt from taxation. Capital gains, which are mostly claimed by the rich, are taxed much lower than income. The tax code has a hoard of loopholes, deductions, and write-offs, which benefit the rich. So, the basic story is: workers are working longer, harder, and producing more; but they aren’t sharing in the gains. And all those gains the CEOs and executives are making off Labor’s production are not being completely or fairly taxed, if at all. So we’re making less and having to pay for more while a few greedy bastards stockpile the treasure of our exploited labor.
Jack Norman calculates, “Thirty years ago, residential property accounted for half of all state property taxes. Today, homeowners pay 70 percent of all property taxes, as the business contributions have dropped…The poorest homeowners (incomes below $15,600) paid more than 14 percent of their income in state and local taxes. The richest homeowners (incomes above $70,000) paid about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes.”
Fred Mohs, former regent with the University of Wisconsin System currently on the board with Madison Gas and Electric, in Barbara Miner's Tax Exempt Milwaukee Magazine article, contends, "The only people left to pay were the peasants and the merchant class, and they eventually solved the problem by cutting off the heads of a lot of people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)