Teabagger poison?
Indiana's property tax caps get counties moving toward income taxes, by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener (Courier-Journal).
When the Clark County Council passed an income tax increase last month, it joined two dozen other Indiana counties working to shift their budgets away from property taxes, a move the General Assembly has encouraged for two years.
Expect immediate comment from my fellow local columnist, Debbie Harbeson, who yesterday took a scathing Libertarian cudgel to State Representative Ed Clere's Nov. 3 piece in the
Tribune, Grant will boost entire community, in which Clere wrote:
Federal stimulus money is flowing into Georgetown. As a result, the town’s sewage will stop flowing down the hill to New Albany. It’s a big win for both communities - and a benefit to the rest of Floyd County and Southern Indiana.
Yesterday, Harbeson issued a challenge:
Let’s clear the rhetoric.
Wow, it must really feel good to be federally stimulated. At least Indiana Rep. Ed Clere makes me think so. I’m sure he’s right because the deal he recently brokered as paid political middleman would certainly make some people feel good. I do have friends and family who will benefit from this forced transfer of funds from one group to another so it’s nice to know someone locally is being stimulated.
I feel like I should be reading these at a sports bar ...
So Mitch's big plan of reducing property taxes will cause counties to enact a new tax that will be spread out equally among all? Sounds like some sort of socialism...
ReplyDeleteJust don't earn income and you can avoid the tax. Apply for state and federal entitlements instead.
ReplyDeleteNo, bayernfan. Mitch's plan prefers to limit taxation on accumulated wealth (property) at the expense of the working person (income).
ReplyDeleteI've no problem with paying an income tax, but income taxes in Indiana aren't progressive - they're essentially flat taxes. Plus, they are far less stable sources of revenue.
A local income tax under these circumstances is a transfer from those who are working to those who have accumulated wealth. In some cases, that property appreciates. In some cases it also throws off passive income which is less amenable to equitable collection.
Ironically, those with the most property have the most to lose from deteriorating public services. Thus, they should pay more. If I live in a tent, I lose little if the fire department can't get to me in time. If I operate my business from a 3,000 s.f. property, I stand to lose not only my asset, but my income.
We don't need police and fire anyway. You should take personal responsibility for your own safety through personal ownership of firearms or armed guards and a fire suppression system in your house.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't afford it that just means you should have worked harder and you deserve what you get. If you are disabled or elderly (and didn't vote Democrat) a rich person will donate money to help you hire armed guards and put in a fire suppression system if you ask real nice and put their name on a building.
It's all about personal responsibility!
;)
Maybe so, B.W., but when the time comes, just make damn sure you get your picture in the paper for doling out tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteThat will no doubt help you campaign the next time on the as yet unexplained but somehow magically inherent community benefits of decreasing local funding-- except, of course, in those specific instances when you had a hand in increasing it.
You can even refer to it as reform. Everybody else in Indiana is doing it. It will ingratiate you to your party.
John Judis has an interesting essay in The New Republic, a part of which discusses "ideological conservatism" versus "operational liberalism".
Decrying government spending while simultaneously taking credit for it is hardly anything new.
Ayn Rand was one of the most morally bankrupt people who opposed any kind of altruism at all. The ultimate evil, in her utopia, was to care for the needs of others. How she is suddenly being embraced by so many is beyond my comprehension.
ReplyDelete