The dirty little secret about Growing Greener 2...Rendell has raised nearly every tax he can. Why didn't he cover this project in his last budget? What taxpayers need to know is that this immense loan will require that for every dollar borrowed, two will have to be paid back. While I agree that it is a sorely needed project, I think it should be paid for by the current budget, not by borrowing more money and dumping it on the taxpayer. This is the same arguement Dibileo and McGuigan are using against Doherty...loans today equal tax increases tomorrow. Keep that in mind. Really, when will enough be enough? How much of a tax burden needs to be laid on the back of the working class? Can't they cut spending in other areas to cover worthy projects like this? THis is nothing but good intentions being burried in waste.
The Governor wanted to impose fees on toxic emissions and charge a bit more for the dumping of waste in our landfills to pay for GG bonds ...but the big business lobbyists for the utilities and Waste Management made sure the Republican majority in H'burg didn't allow that...and remember 50% of the waste dumped in PA landfills is from NY and NJ so in the Governor's plan our people wouldn't be paying half of the fees that couldve been raised to settle the debt incurred.
Instead, the Repugnantcans in Hburg shot that down, brought the proposed programs debt in to the state's regular budget process for debt service obligations and they will spread the costs of this essential investment on middle class Pennsylvanians -- as you aptly point out.
But the need is so dire to clean up our state -- "such a sorely needed project" -- that it seemed a price worth paying--again, as you aptly point out.
As far as cutting in other areas...with George Bush in Washington bleeding states budgets dry to provide tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans...there is sadly little room to cut without really hurting people.
quote: Originally posted by: O K Fine As far as cutting in other areas...with George Bush in Washington bleeding states budgets dry to provide tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans...there is sadly little room to cut without really hurting people. "
Spare me the tears and the pandering rhetoric. Tax cuts can only be done to people that actually PAY taxes.
The tax burden is shifted to a small percentage of the population. 10% of the country has to pay 50% of the tax bill.
To put it another way. Let's say that this Federal Income Tax system is like you going out to eat at a nice restaurant with nine other "friends". The total bill comes to $100, which should be $10/person to be equitable. However, most of your friends don't make near as much money as you do and so they can't afford to eat at places like this. A system is agreed upon where each friend pays on a "sliding scale" that percentage of the bill that they can afford but after all the calculations you realize that six of your friends end up paying only about $1.20 each, the seventh friend pays $15 and you and another friend end up footing the rest of the bill.
Because they had such a great dinner your friends start insisting that you all go out to this same expensive restaurant all of the time but only as long as the same pay arrangements are maintained. You protest that this arrangement is not fair and that you should not be taken advantage of just because you are the "rich guy". However, your friends protest that they should not be punished just because they are "poor". Your suggestions that they pay just a little more for their share of the meal or that the group should go to a less expensive restaurant are met with angry stares and profanity filled letters about "tax cuts for the rich" to the editor of your local media outlet.
Oh the poor rich people. We shoudl feel so sorry for them. But why should someone who is struggling have (for instance) 35% of their wages taken away when they make less than 90,000 but people who make more than 90,000 have a tax break> A break? Give me a freaking break. We're only thinking about or discussing giving THEM a break only because THEY write the laws.
You're also leaving out the zero sum game of capital. That rich guy is making so much money BECAUSE his "friends" are making less. Value doesn't grow on trees, it is produced by labour.
Europe has a much more egalitarian system and a much better welfare state (even though they pay the same amount as liberal states such as U.S. and Austrialia) and their capital is flourishing.
Originally posted by: AntisystemicMovements " We're only thinking about or discussing giving THEM a break only because THEY write the laws.
No, you did not answer the question on how you give tax breaks to the people that don't pay taxes.
You're also leaving out the zero sum game of capital. That rich guy is making so much money BECAUSE his "friends" are making less.
Ah. The great socialist/Democrat lie. There is no static piece of pie with some people getting more than their fair share. If that were true, Manhattan would still be worth the beads it was bought for, we'd be starving to death because the world food supply 150 yrs ago could never support the current population, and the homeless would be at least half the population because the number of domiciles has increased. The economy grows and expands, unless you suffocate the drivers of the economy with excessive taxes like the former USSR.
"No, you did not answer the question on how you give tax breaks to the people that don't pay taxes."
If you're implying that the working class doesn't pay taxes then where TF is my wage tax going?
"Ah. The great socialist/Democrat lie. There is no static piece of pie with some people getting more than their fair share. If that were true, Manhattan would still be worth the beads it was bought for, we'd be starving to death because the world food supply 150 yrs ago could never support the current population, and the homeless would be at least half the population because the number of domiciles has increased. The economy grows and expands, unless you suffocate the drivers of the economy with excessive taxes like the former USSR."
Well there is a static peice of pie in a sense because the world is VERY finite (despite capitalism being a system that is ever expanding and ever deepening).
Labor too is very finite. Capitalists are running out of cheap labour supplies as fast as they are running out of places to dump toxic waste.
Manhattan is a global city, and it is the CORE of the commodity chain that exploits world capital. The captialst world-economy expands,that is very true. BUT ONLY at the expense of the periphery. Capitalism is a system that accumulates/over comes crisis only at the expense of incorporating areas and/or deepening in areas that it did not incorporate or deepen in before. Again, it is a zero sum game. Others argue that it is a negative sum game (Wallerstein). It's obvious that you need to brush up on your political economy.
As for the homelessness.... homelessness expands outwards to the periphery and semi periphery. Look at Brazil (good article by Loic Waquant on Brazil) and South Africa. Both neoliberal states like the U.S.. The US is becoming A LOT like SA and Brazil in many ways, it is scarey.
What do you mean by excessive taxes? Euro countries have high taxes and their capital flourishes. And they have a welfare state!
If you need a list of readings i'd be happy to give it you.
Your story of 10 friends eating dinner and sharing the cost on an ability to pay basis as an analogy for the US federal tax system is misguided at best. You make an enormous error in assuming that our tax system is fair, equitable and that every individual pays only that share of the burden that they can "afford" to pay and that those paying less than "the rich" have no basis for complaint. Lets look at a few basic facts...from basic IRS research done by "Citizens for Tax Justice:
82 of 275 Fortune 500 companies -- the largest and most profitable corporations in America paid NO federal income tax in at least 1 year of George W. Bush's first term, a period in which federal corporate tax collections fell to thier lowest sustained level in six decades. The increase in the number of tax avoiding companyies reflects a White House and a Congress eager to do lobbyists' bidding. Several of the 82 companies had multiple No Tax years in Bush's first term -- and these companies earned $102 billion in pre-tax US profits. Instead of paying $35.6 Billion in income tax (as implied with a 35% corp tax rate) these companies generated so many excees tax breaks that they got rebate checks from the US Treasury totaling $12.6 Billion. And who are the losers from widespread corporate tax avoidance:
--The general public who must pay higher taxes, lose public services or be responsible for big future debt burdens (lest we forget the deficits that Bush is running to pay for his war);
--disadvantaged industries and companies that find it harder to compete for investment capital with tax-favored corporations (that is, telecommunications, petroleum, pipelines, transportation, gas and electric utilities and electric equipment -- which, while big winners in tax avoidance the past four years also combined to REDUCE their capital investments in the US by 22% during the same period) -- so you see how well they are spending those tax breaks to build wealth here.
--The US economy which is harmed by the distortions that corporate subsidies produce; and
--State governments and state taxpayers, which see their corporate tax systems erode along with the federal system (and which, due to erosion of federal support are forced to shoulder a greater share share of necessary public investment in the quality of life in this country -- infrastructure, education, health care, etc. )
...AND from the Washington Post
Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise/Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline: By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Wednesday, June 4, 2003 -- Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies. As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very wealthiest Americans -- those earning $337,000 or more per year -- will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes in the nation's tax laws. And, as administration officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a disproportionately lighter tax burden. The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes than they did before the changes.
The dirty little secret about Growing Greener 2...Rendell has raised nearly every tax he can. Why didn't he cover this project in his last budget? What taxpayers need to know is that this immense loan will require that for every dollar borrowed, two will have to be paid back. While I agree that it is a sorely needed project, I think it should be paid for by the current budget, not by borrowing more money and dumping it on the taxpayer. This is the same arguement Dibileo and McGuigan are using against Doherty...loans today equal tax increases tomorrow. Keep that in mind. Really, when will enough be enough? How much of a tax burden needs to be laid on the back of the working class? Can't they cut spending in other areas to cover worthy projects like this? THis is nothing but good intentions being burried in waste.
