Plan B Forum

Have the scales fallen from his eyes at last?

_________________________
Bonus Quote of the Day:

"We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
_________________________




yrs,
rubato

Now if only you could achieve self-knowledge...

On second thought, that might not be such a good thing....

If that were to actually happen, you might jump off a bridge...

BJ has a problem with science
_______________________
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-25/poli ... M:POLITICS
"
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's swipe at federal spending to monitor volcanoes has the mayor of one city in the shadow of Mount St. Helens fuming.

"Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. "We have one that's very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently."

Jindal singled out a $140 million appropriation for the U.S. Geological Survey as an example of questionable government spending during the GOP response to President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night.
"________________________


Lies big and lies small
nobody lies like Bobby Jindal:
________________________
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021215865

Bobby Jindal---the lying sack of shit. Remember this one during Katrina?
Looks like the game is up.

Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night — about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Turns out it wasn’t actually, you know, true.

In the last few days, first Daily Kos, and then TPMmuckraker, raised serious questions about the story, based in part on the fact that no news reports we could find place Jindal in the affected area at the specific time at issue.

Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee “during Katrina,” and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn’t have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, “that’s ridiculous,” prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone “days later.” The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... _false.php
________________________________--

offensive and bizarre comments

When did Joe Biden join the republicans?

Not in practice -- Jindal is continuing Republican policies that benefit the rich and take advantage of the poor: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opini ... neral&_r=0

Consider, as a case in point, how a widely reported recent speech by Bobby Jindal the governor of Louisiana, compares with his actual policies.

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

But Mr. Jindal didn’t offer any suggestions about how Republicans might demonstrate that they aren’t just about letting the rich keep their toys, other than claiming even more loudly that their policies are good for everyone.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well.

Like the new acknowledgment that the perception of being the party of the rich is a problem, this represents a departure for the G.O.P. — but in the opposite direction. In the past, Republicans would justify tax cuts for the rich either by claiming that they would pay for themselves or by claiming that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting wasteful spending. But what we’re seeing now is open, explicit reverse Robin Hoodism: taking from ordinary families and giving to the rich. That is, even as Republicans look for a way to sound more sympathetic and less extreme, their actual policies are taking another sharp right turn.

Back in Massachusetts, Governor Patrick, in an effort to finally fix the broken finances of the T (a problem the T itself, and the legislature keep kicking down the road), had proposed lowering the sales tax (which was raised from 5% to 6.25% in 2010) and increasing the income tax. It's not popular, but its at least a more progressive way to get at the problem.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well.

And yet poor Republicans will support such changes, because they continue to live under the illusion that the mythological American Dream will someday propel them into the ranks of the rich, even though most of them will die poorer than they are now.

And the silly belief that the wealthy should not have to pay for the sunbstantial benefits they receive from this country (or the even sillier belief that the wealthy get no such benefits).

I have read of studies that show the "truism" that sales taxes are regressive is not accurate. While it is self-evident, if Rich Person A and Poor Person B each buy a bike for $500 that is taxed at 10%, they will both pay $50; and on that one purchase B pays a much higher percent of tax based on his income. However, Rich Person A will buy a lot more in cash terms -- many multiples more -- than Poor Person B, especially over their lifetimes, so that the sales tax is no longer regressive. And if the sales tax is structured so that basic essentials such as most food items and medicine are excluded from the sales tax, the impact of the tax begins to look quite progressive.

From a tax policy standpoint, you also create a model that encourages savings and investment over purchases. You also create a tax structure that favors working and making money. The problem with the above commentary is that it assumes a static world in which those that make a lot of money will just stay put (or that low-income people will just stay) put no matter what the taxes are. I can confirm that living in a high income tax state (with no sales tax), next to a state that has no income tax but does have a high sales tax, we regularly lose a lot of well-to-do people who move solely for tax purposes. This hurts our state and helps the next-door state. I am not sure how it all works out in each situation, but the bet is that by having more wealthy people helping drive the local economy, everyone will come out ahead. I guess it works until every state follows the same strategy.

So the question isn't whether the wealthy should pay their "share", since they will pay whatever they are willing to pay. Rather, the question is what is the smartest tax structure to most efficiently raise the necessary revenue while doing the least amount of harm to the economy.

However, Rich Person A will buy a lot more in cash terms -- many multiples more -- than Poor Person B, especially over their lifetimes, so that the sales tax is no longer regressive.

It will always be regressive because poor people consume a much greater proportion of their income in purchases than rich people, just because they must in order to live. Plus, rich people are in a much better position to purchase whatever toys they feel like playing with this week outside of the jurisdiction, thus avoiding tax entirely. And you can create as many exemptions for food or whatever you want, their prices will increase because there is no way to shield all of the inputs that go into selling them from tax.

From a tax policy standpoint, you also create a model that encourages savings and investment over purchases.

So you encourage the rich to get richer on the back of taxes paid by the poor, because they cannot afford to save or invest anywhere near the proportion of their income that wealthy people can, if at all.

I can confirm that living in a high income tax state (with no sales tax), next to a state that has no income tax but does have a high sales tax, we regularly lose a lot of well-to-do people who move solely for tax purposes.

That should tell you who benefits from a no income tax, high sales tax regime. If you had said that poor people were leaving your state in droves to move to that state, your claim that they would be better off under such a regime would have been supported; as it is you have undercut your entire argument.

by having more wealthy people helping drive the local economy, everyone will come out ahead

Oh look, the mantra of trickle down economics. Are we going to get a graphic of the Laffer Curve next?

[quote="Scooter

I can confirm that living in a high income tax state (with no sales tax), next to a state that has no income tax but does have a high sales tax, we regularly lose a lot of well-to-do people who move solely for tax purposes.

That should tell you who benefits from a no income tax, high sales tax regime. If you had said that poor people were leaving your state in droves to move to that state, your claim that they would be better off under such a regime would have been supported; as it is you have undercut your entire argument.

[/quote]

Scooter is exactly right. Think about Massachusetts -- NH has no sales tax or state income tax, but much higher property tax rate (almost double compared to some towns). You would think those without property would move there, but they don't --- the ones I know who give up MA for NH are the prosperous and educated, with the flexibility and resources to be able to commute an hour each way into Boston (or elesewhere in MA) outside of the reach of much of the public transportation, to pay for that much more child care for a longer day away from home.

If you want the tautology of a Laffer Curve, that's fine, but is beside the point, as is any trickle down or up theory.

The point is, will Louisiana (in this case) be better off or worse off if they move from an income tax to a sales tax. If it causes a lot of wealthy people to move to the state (and keeps a wealthy people there), it will have a benefit to the economy. It is silly to suggest that an economy that attracts poorer people and chases away wealthier people is better than the converse.

And as with most things, the details are what can drive the decision: a well-designed sales tax will beat a badly designed income tax, and vice versa. For example, in our state you get to the traditional top rate of 9% at $7,750 of income (we recently bumped that to 9.9% for incomes above $125,000) -- not much progressivity there, especially since the truly wealthy have lots of capital gains that get taxed at less than 9%. Across the river in Washington, a person does not pay sales tax on groceries, medicine and many other necessary daily items. The lower income groups appear happy for the trade-off of paying sales tax on other items, many of which are discretionary, while not having to pay any income tax. Would you rather pay 9% on every dollar you earn, or 7 or 8% on some of your purchases?

If people even at the lower end of the income groups come out ahead by paying less taxes, why would they worry that there is also a "win" for upper earners?

Guinevere wrote:
Think about Massachusetts -- NH has no sales tax or state income tax, but much higher property tax rate (almost double compared to some towns). You would think those without property would move there, but they don't --- the ones I know who give up MA for NH are the prosperous and educated, with the flexibility and resources to be able to commute an hour each way into Boston (or elsewhere in MA) outside of the reach of much of the public transportation, to pay for that much more child care for a longer day away from home.

Two problems with your example. First, everyone pays property taxes, which are also regressive by the way. Renters pay property taxes in the form of higher rents. Plus, there has to be a job for someone without property, so it makes no difference if they don't directly pay property tax or income tax or sales tax, if they can't get a job in the Granite State. Most people, especially on the lower end of incomes are not going to live over an hour away from their low or mid-income job.

The other problem is that New Hampshire is unique in that the full-time residents know that they are the vacation spot for Bostoners, New Yorkers and other urban areas of the Northeast (Vermont has a more balanced tax structure but still has a high property tax rate for the same reason). They are happy to structure the tax system to focus on the property tax to extract the maximum amount from these part-timers and vacationers. An income tax would not reach these part-timers, and would only be paid by full-time residents. A sales tax would only capture a small amount of revenue from the part-timers, while being mainly paid by full-time residents. In contrast, the property tax is paid by anyone owning or using real property, and if you have a lot of vacationers and part-timers, this is how you get them to pay more in taxes relative to the full-timers. The examples of the successful professionals who work in Boston and live in NH are interesting, but purely anecdotal; not sure what the macro numbers would show (probably plenty of retirees moving to New Hampshire from Mass.)

So Long Run, why is my purely anecdotal information less valuable and relevant than your purely anecdotal information?

Guinevere wrote:So Long Run, why is my purely anecdotal information less valuable and relevant than your purely anecdotal information?

It's not. I just don't know what your point is. That there other factors in choosing where to live other than the tax structure? We can all agree that taxes aren't everything. Some people who can afford to, will live in the quaint small towns of New Hampshire where their families can go skiing at the nearby hill, and deal with the commute into Boston. On the other hand, the tax structure does matter, which is why there are a myriad of articles listing New Hampshire as a good place to retire if you don't mind the winter weather.

Long Run wrote:The point is, will Louisiana (in this case) be better off or worse off if they move from an income tax to a sales tax. If it causes a lot of wealthy people to move to the state (and keeps a wealthy people there), it will have a benefit to the economy.

If a lot of wealthy people move to the state and purchase most of their goods out of state, where there is no sales tax, or where it can be refunded (such as by flying to France every year to get their fill of designer originals, with a stop in St. Tropez to pick up a new yacht or two, and getting all of their VAT refunded when they leave), then it will be of almost zero benefit to the state. This is what most people who support consumption taxes simply do not get, that the proponents of such schemes design them purposefully so that the wealthy are able to avoid taxes. The same was true of the so-called Fair Tax, which was designed to tax only that which was purchased in the U.S. with no taxes applied to goods purchased abroad and imported. It was a rich person's dream, the ability to earn and spend their money with impunity without having to pay a dime in taxes, while poor people would be paying taxes on every mouthful that passed their lips. And the economic benefits of that rich person's spending would not accrue to the U.S. economy at all. I see nothing to suggest that the Louisiana proposal would be any different.

Louisiana already has a cost of living which is a fraction of that in Cal. It is not likely that anyone who is rich and can locate where they want will locate there based solely on income tax rates. House prices, for example are a small fraction of those in Calif. (or any place which is desirable to live) But it is true that the rich can more easily avoid sales taxes esp. on 'big ticket' items than can the poor. Those who recall the Tyco scandal will recall that Dennis Kozlowski was buying million-dollar paintings and pretending their destination was a no-sales tax state and then installing them in Manhattan.

La. already has very low income taxes and taxes overall. If cutting taxes led to prosperity they would all be rich right now:

http://www.revenue.louisiana.gov/sectio ... ncome.aspx

Rate of tax ............ 2008 Tax Year and Prior Years ............ Effective January 1, 2009
..............................Single, married filing separately, or head of household:
2 percent ..... First $12,500 ................. .....First $12,500
4 percent ..... Next $12,500 ..... ................. Next $37,500
6 percent ..... Over $25,000 ..... ................. Over $50,000
........................Married filing jointly or qualified surviving spouse:
2 percent ..... First $25,000 ..... ................. First $25,000
4 percent ..... Next $25,000 ................. ..... Next $75,000
6 percent ..... Over $50,000 ..... ............ .....Over $100,000

Cutting taxes on people whose taxes are already low is just stupid policy. And low-tax states suck as places to live or send your child to university.



yrs,
rubato