Will Ga. GOP dare to raise your taxes?

Note: This post includes material published here earlier, as well as fresh material discussing a similar tax plan proposed in Louisiana by Gov. Bobby Jindal. It is posted as the electronic version of today’s AJC column:

On the final day of the 2013 legislative session, a group of Republican legislators introduced “The Georgia Fair Taxation Act.” By doing so, they set the stage for what may prove to be the most important legislative battle of next year’s session, or potentially the decade.

“This bill is the beginning of the discussion to eliminate the income tax in the state of Georgia,” state Rep. Tom Kirby of Loganville said in announcing the legislation. According to Kirby, he has already conferred with and agreed to work with Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, who has proposed similar legislation on the Senate side.

To offset the billions in revenue that would be lost by eliminating both the personal and corporate income tax in Georgia, Kirby says, the state sales tax would have to jump by three to 4.8 percentage points. In metro Atlanta, that would produce a combined state and local sales tax of roughly 11 or 12 percent. (As we’ll see, the actual number would be higher still.)

In addition, the reach of the state sales tax would be expanded considerably, perhaps to food and other items. The national version of the so-called “FairTax,” cited by Kirby and others as a model for Georgia, would apply the sales tax to items such as rent, health care and tuition.

Such a proposal creates many problems, but here are three of the largest:

1.) The change would mean major tax increases for the vast majority of Georgians, and major tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations. There’s no dispute among economists: As a revenue system becomes more reliant on the sales taxes, it hits the poor and middle class harder while providing large tax breaks for the wealthy. The single step of eliminating the corporate income tax would shift $735 million in taxes onto consumers.

2.) When asked about that massive shift in tax burden in a press conference last week, Kirby brushed it aside, asserting that greater prosperity and more jobs would more than compensate for higher taxes on the non-wealthy. “We bring this piece of the puzzle, and we can see an exponential increase in the number of businesses looking at Georgia,” he predicted.

The problem is, there is no evidence to support that claim. For example, in announcing the legislation, Kirby repeatedly cited competition from Tennessee and Florida, pointing out that those neighboring states have no income taxes. Given the economic miracles that an absence of an income tax is said to produce, those states must be booming, right?

Wrong. Per capita GDP in both Tennessee and Florida is well below the national average, and below that of Georgia as well. Tennessee has lost 3.5 percent of its jobs in the last five years, compared to 5.9 percent in Georgia and 7.2 percent in Florida. So the absence of an income tax doesn’t seem to have done them any great favors.

3.) The sales tax increase needed to keep the system revenue neutral will be considerably higher than the estimate of 3 to 4.8 points. That estimate was derived through “dynamic economic modeling”, which is a fancy way of saying “just making numbers up.” “Dynamic modeling” assumes that Georgia’s new tax system will create an economic boom, which in turn will generate a lot of new revenue. It is pure conjecture.

If that magic revenue doesn’t appear, as it probably won’t, Georgia’s battered budget would suffer even more whacks with a meat ax.

If Republican leaders are being honest about their commitment to reform, they have the muscle to force it through. Shafer, the Senate’s top leader, is championing the concept. As a congressman, Gov. Nathan Deal was a strong supporter of the FairTax at the national level. And among the co-sponsors of Kirby’s bill in the House are Ed Lindsey, the House majority whip, and Donna Sheldon, chair of the House Republican Caucus.

And once put to a floor vote, such a measure will be hard for GOP legislators to oppose. As state Rep. Buzz Brockway pointed out in last week’s press conference, “It is tough to win a Republican primary in the state of Georgia and be against the FairTax. So I think on the Republican side there is broad support for the FairTax model.”

Brockway’s correct: Much of Georgia’s Republican base harbors a cult-like obsession with the FairTax. But I don’t believe it is true of the electorate in general.

In conservative Louisiana, for example, Gov. Bobby Jindal has proposed a sweeping tax-reform proposal much like that championed by Kirby, Shafer and others. It too would replace the state income and corporate tax with a broader, higher sales tax, among other changes, and the rhetoric used to defend the change is familiar as well.

“Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs,” Jindal said in announcing the effort.

However, according to a new poll, 63 percent of Louisiana residents oppose the proposed tax reform, and strong opposition to the plan helps to explain a 22-point collapse in Jindal’s job-approval numbers. In fact, Jindal is now less popular in deep-red Louisiana than Barack Obama, a fact that does not bode well for the governor’s presidential ambitions.

To complicate things further, the poll cited above was taken before the Jindal administration was forced to admit that it had badly underestimated how high the sales tax would have to increase to keep the plan revenue neutral. That too should sound familiar.

As the Shreveport Times reports:

“They may call it reform of the tax system but two-thirds of Louisiana sees it as a tax increase,” (pollster Bernie) Pinsonat said. “We did the poll before his revenue secretary increased it. (Opposition) would probably be 70-72 percent now.”

In other words, this is yet another idea that has been planted and carefully nurtured within the right-wing’s intellectual hothouse, but that withers and dies once it is exposed to real-life political conditions.

– Jay Bookman

407 comments Add your comment

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:14 pm

“It redistributes from the poor to the rich. You don’t have a problem with redistribution, you have a problem with poor people. -”

How, tell me exaclty how money will be taken away from poor people and handed to rich people.

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
3:16 pm

I give up HDB

iBS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm

First, let me apologize (crocodile tears not included), Mr. Bookman, for stomping your lame bigotry post argument some day(s) ago. It was lots of fun for me but I fear my comments could bring about the failure of our “mutual dislike society.” You being a die-hard Marxist and me being in the Milton Friedman corner (and I’m laughing even as I write this).

The progressive tax system is modern day SLAVERY. Slavery of the productive by the unproductive, or less productive, if you will. Nothing could be further from the ideals of the Constitution than to shackle those Americans who work smart and hard to the tyrrany of those who may only be concerned with “what can the government do for me now.” Hence, we need a flat income tax structure or none at all.

Thanks, I’ll be here all week.

Jackie

April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm

Flat taxes are regressive in that the less income you have the greater percentage of your income is required to pay taxes.

It sounds good to say that everyone pays the same tax rate; everyone does not enjoy the same income.

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:02 pm

Proves what I always thought about you…

mbtc

April 3rd, 2013
3:18 pm

ITM: “Okay, what should it be. Tired of just hearing rhetoric. Tell me what you think people should make and who should decide that…”

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:20 pm

First, let me apologize (crocodile tears not included), Mr. Bookman, for stomping your lame bigotry post argument some day(s) ago.

You are a legend in your own my. None of us saw this alledged stomping. It must be like George W. Bush and his mission accomplished crap. EXACTLY the lame crap one would expect out of a lame brained talk radio slogan spewing FOXBOT.

Here’s your sign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZkdHImCuQ

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:22 pm

mind not my lol.

Jase

April 3rd, 2013
3:22 pm

Awesome Fred! We are all so pleased tht you have a new dog. Hope it is not a pitbull – the breed has a habit of attacking d-bags like yourself. Good luck!

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:23 pm

Jackie

April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm
Well said, Jackie!

Middle, Willie, are you hearing this?

indigo

April 3rd, 2013
3:24 pm

Normal – 2:38

1. They seek a world where marriage is honored and upheld.
2. Where children are nurtured and protected.
3. Where homosexuality is not taught and accepted but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.

I have no problems with 1 and 2. The jury is still out on 3.

Nothing you have said disproves their beliefs.

That The Southern Poverty Law Center discredits this research does NOT prove they are wrong.

Look at 1, 2, and 3 again.

Is this your definition of “hate”?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
3:24 pm

Thanks, I’ll be here all week.

So?

FrankLeeDarling

April 3rd, 2013
3:25 pm

companies are going to lower prices? hahahahah!
does anyone really believe that.

the only way this could work is to raise the minimum wage to 28$ an hour.

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:25 pm

iBS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm

IBS Aplenty,

You surely do….hands down.

TaxPayer

April 3rd, 2013
3:26 pm

Come now Jay. You should not be surprised that the cons would be in favor of the FairlyOddTax™ given that they don’t do math.

JamVet

April 3rd, 2013
3:26 pm

BTW, I want to clarify that my love for willie is of the fraternal, not romantic variety.

LOL…

“…..income disparity in this country in growing exponentially, so what do we need?? Oh, yeah, tax policy that hits lower incomes the hardest, and increases said disparity.”

Sickening.

First item of business – increase the minimum wage to 1968 (?!) levels. Which is no BFD. About $11/hour. Funded by the guys who make $11,000/hour. Presuming that the company doesn’t want to lose market share…

Walmart now advises it insanely low-paid employees how to apply for food stamps, earned income tax credits and for a variety of options for housing assistance.

You read right. Walmart is actually loading you and me and the other American taxpayers down with their financial burden.

Again, sickening…

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:26 pm

Jase

April 3rd, 2013
3:22 pm

Awesome Fred! We are all so pleased tht you have a new dog. Hope it is not a pitbull – the breed has a habit of attacking d-bags like yourself. Good luck!
+++++++++++++++

Look either another stalker or a regular one with a cowardly new alt. Glad you are so scared you have to hide stalker.

TBS

April 3rd, 2013
3:27 pm

“Thanks, I’ll be here all week.”

You are probably here most weeks. Just under a different name.

HDB

April 3rd, 2013
3:28 pm

Jackie
April 3rd, 2013
3:17 pm

THANK YOU!! Right on point!!! Middle, willie….did you get this???

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:28 pm

Yo TBS? Were you here this morning for all the Cons ate up with fear? I thought about those two Rushbots and their fear last night at the bar lol.

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:29 pm

indigo

April 3rd, 2013
3:24 pm

Jusus H. Christ in a hand basket,
They are wrong with their portrayal of Gays. They are liars trying to put a faith based agenda on us. If you believe their pap, then you are truly misguided. God save us from any stupidity, but most certainly from religious stupidity

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:29 pm

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:23 pm

I did see. I still don’t care. Understand it is not about being selfish as much as it is being realistic. I found out in general “key phrase in general” people only care about things that they think benefit themselves. People moslty “care’ about poor people because it makes them feel good about themselves, it has almost nothing to do with improving the lives of the poor,

TBS

April 3rd, 2013
3:30 pm

Fred

Didn’t get on the blog early, but read through some of the usual tirades……….

jms

April 3rd, 2013
3:30 pm

Imagine an elderly person getting hit with a 17% tax on medication…………..

I’d rather imagine me with a full head of hair since we are fantasizing

-sounds like that medication is Propecia

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
3:31 pm

TP – You should not be surprised that the cons would be in favor of the FairlyOddTax™ given that they don’t do math.

how much will this reform change your tax burden?

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
3:31 pm

“To paraphrase “you must be standing outside at high noon, in broad daylight with your xenon flashlight looking for that money line?””

Hahahah that is so funny! Except when you realize the liberals just do not get it.

Peace

April 3rd, 2013
3:31 pm

“As a revenue system becomes more reliant on the sales taxes, it hits the poor and middle class harder …”

Ah, Jay, you aren’t marching in step with your liberal philosophy. Why should ‘paying your fair share’ only apply to those who have worked harder and accumulated more? Hike the sales tax, adopt a ‘fair’ tax, and let everybody participate. Selective taxation isn’t just wrong…it’s not fair to all concerned. And I know how you love ‘fairness’.

stands for decibels - tagline applied for

April 3rd, 2013
3:32 pm

oh, and indigo? You’ve got nothing, nada, zilch, zippo, that supports your shower-buddy “Scratch It”’s foolish assertion that the media is conspiring to cover up child rape in order to avoid upsetting gay folks.

So again, just stop embarrassing yourself.

jms

April 3rd, 2013
3:32 pm

“First item of business – increase the minimum wage to 1968 (?!) levels. Which is no BFD. About $11/hour. Funded by the guys who make $11,000/hour. Presuming that the company doesn’t want to lose market share…”

I think you’re wildly overestimating the number of people making that much

clem

April 3rd, 2013
3:33 pm

sure they will they did it when they gutted the homeowners property tax relief…..couple hundred bucks for me if i remember correctly

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:33 pm

“Funded by the guys who make $11,000/hour. Presuming that the company doesn’t want to lose market share…””

an hour, cripes it almost takes me all day to make that kind of money

Jase

April 3rd, 2013
3:34 pm

Ahh Fred! We already know you are the internet tough guy. Why would I be hiding?

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:34 pm

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:29 pm

Rationalize it any way you want to Middle. I still don’t see how making the poor or fixed income elderly is going to “help” them improve their lives…seems to me they will have to go back to eating cat food to survive…

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
3:34 pm

…and let everybody participate.

“Everybody” already “participates”.

mbtc

April 3rd, 2013
3:35 pm

GOP prescriptions for all that ails: Economic problems? Have a tax cut. Societal problems? Buy a gun. Trouble getting a job? Hmmm, tax cut or buy a gun? Toe fungus? Open carry in church. Thanks, GOP!

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:36 pm

Jase

April 3rd, 2013
3:34 pm

Ahh Fred! We already know you are the internet tough guy. Why would I be hiding?
++++++++++++++++++

I have no idea why you cowards do anything Doomy.

Joe Hussein Mama

April 3rd, 2013
3:37 pm

I. T. Middle — “People moslty “care’ about poor people because it makes them feel good about themselves, it has almost nothing to do with improving the lives of the poor,”

Okay, I’ll bite.

How does raising taxes on the poorest Americans improve their lives?

Jefferson

April 3rd, 2013
3:38 pm

So you are renting a house with your sister, rent is $1200 a month, you make 90K a year and she makes 30k, so $600 each is fair to you — this shows how you feel about people and worse how you would treat your sister.

Next some would come up who should live or die when there is 4 people of different professions and only enough food for 2 people until the next boat comes by.

jms

April 3rd, 2013
3:40 pm

“How does raising taxes on the poorest Americans improve their lives?”

How does raising ANYONE’s taxes improve their lives?

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:40 pm

Normal, Plain and Simple

April 3rd, 2013
3:34 pm

Have you seen how much cat food costs.

But seriously, I am not completely unsympathetic to the elderly on fixed income. If we do go to a regressive tax I would support an exemption for indiviuals over a certain age (easy to do with todays technology). But it ends there. If you are in your twenties complaining about being poor, I don’t care. I was in my twenties and poor once. I decided to not stay that way.

Jase

April 3rd, 2013
3:40 pm

Hi Fred. Doomy? Is that Star Trek slang?

Dumb and Dumber

April 3rd, 2013
3:40 pm

Corporate taxes are pretty crazy, tax a company once when it makes money and then tax the owners a second time when they receive money from the company? I know Dems like to tax things 2-3 times, but that one is a bit tough to explain.

And I do believe that a state losing 3.5% of its jobs vs. 5.9% of its jobs is mighty important to the 2.4% that didn’t lose their jobs. They pay taxes rather than drawing unemployment, a huge difference. GA has lost 6% of its jobs according to the post, I think about 40% of those people would love to have jobs today (that’s the difference between 3.5 and 5.9….

iBS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2013
3:40 pm

TBS @ 3:27

Not hardly. I’m comfortable enough with my thinking/reasoning that, should I be shown in error, I’m capable of change. Part of the reason I come to this blog is to hear an alternate view. If you can say the same, then I can respect that.

Again, I don’t post under any other moniker except this one. You may query Mr. Bookman if you need confirmation.

Jay

April 3rd, 2013
3:42 pm

Peace asks:

Why should ‘paying your fair share’ only apply to those who have worked harder and accumulated more? Hike the sales tax, adopt a ‘fair’ tax, and let everybody participate. Selective taxation isn’t just wrong.

Because as I’ve explained before — http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2013/03/15/ga-tax-reform-will-mean-big-tax-hike-for-many/ — the poor and middle class ALREADY pay a higher share of their income in Georgia than do the rich. The middle class pays a rate almost twice as high as the top 1 percent. The poorest pay at a rate two and a half times higher than the 1 percent.

The proposed changes would make the existing discrepancy considerably larger.

Oh, and announcement sheets upstairs.

stands for decibels - tagline applied for

April 3rd, 2013
3:43 pm

Imagine an elderly person getting hit with a 17% tax on medication…………..

The Olds of GA have been getting a pretty humungous state income tax break up to now (all Social Security, plus the first $65K of other kinds of income aren’t taxed AT. ALL).

Wonder if these legislative doofuses have even bothered to figure in that bit of political calculus?

(yes, my google is broken/I’m too lazy to look it up.)

Joe Hussein Mama

April 3rd, 2013
3:44 pm

jms — “How does raising ANYONE’s taxes improve their lives?”

If you’ll notice, the poster to whom I replied posited that Democrats dont want to improve the lives of the poor. The corollary, is, of course, that Republicans somehow do.

Since the Republican proposal amounts to raising taxes on the poor and since the Democrats oppose it, then it seems that the poster is suggesting that the Republican proposal will somehow *help* the poor. I’d like to know how.

I didn’t include other demographic groups in my question because the poster didn’t seem to make any assertions of claims about them.

stands for decibels - tagline applied for

April 3rd, 2013
3:44 pm

Oh, and announcement sheets upstairs.

I’m not sure I can bear to look.

TaxPayer

April 3rd, 2013
3:46 pm

how much will this reform change your tax burden?

If corporations end up shifting their current state tax burden onto consumers, then this reform change will increase the consumer’s tax burden by that much too much.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
3:47 pm

I’m not sure I can bear to look.

“Tomorrow”
– Thomas “Little Orphan Annie” Jefferson

deegee

April 3rd, 2013
3:47 pm

There is another contradiction to the argument made by the Fair Tax people. Their pariah, Neal Boortz used to make an argument that whatever you tax more of you get less of. For example, if you want to discourage people from smoking then tax cigarettes. Then in the next breath he would argue for a consumption tax. Considering that 80% of our GDP is comprised of consumption, what do you think that a big tax on consumption is going to do? You think 2009 was fun? And forget about corporations suddenly lowering their prices because they aren’t paying income tax. That’s a pipe dream.

jms

April 3rd, 2013
3:48 pm

“So you are renting a house with your sister, rent is $1200 a month, you make 90K a year and she makes 30k, so $600 each is fair to you — this shows how you feel about people and worse how you would treat your sister.”

Right. So if the brother loses his 90K a year job. The sister pays all $1200.

Or how about this at the MacDonald’s… OK sir, based on your income, your Big Mac costs $75. For you ma’am, your Big Mac costs 35 cents. That’s fair right? Otherwise, the guy will be spending a smaller percentage of his income on Big Macs than the lady.

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
3:50 pm

Jackie: “It sounds good to say that everyone pays the same tax rate; everyone does not enjoy the same income.”

Wow that reeks of communism but we have been fighting that for years. So the status quo is preferred? Keep the 47% from paying income tax but receive most of the government benefits.
I get it!

Regnad Kcin

April 3rd, 2013
3:51 pm

“Corporate taxes are pretty crazy, tax a company once when it makes money and then tax the owners a second time when they receive money from the company?”

“Corporations are people, too, my friend.”

Yeah, tell me about it. They tax it once when my company makes money, and then tax me a second time when I recieve money from the company.

jms

April 3rd, 2013
3:51 pm

JHM, you lost me at “If”

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
3:51 pm

JHM – You are correct. I think that patronizing people is wrong. Understand that if the poor in this country started to compete for resources (jobs, income) at the same rate I do, they wouldn’t be poor for long. The downside is that it is hard work, sometimes stressful, often risky, but completely rewarding.
I dont think either the dems or the GOP have done much of anything to improve the lives of the poor.

Regnad Kcin

April 3rd, 2013
3:52 pm

“They pay taxes rather than drawing unemployment, a huge difference.”

Unless they work for Wal-Mart, when the get public assistance.

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
3:55 pm

Or how about this at the MacDonald’s… OK sir, based on your income, your Big Mac costs $75. For you ma’am, your Big Mac costs 35 cents. That’s fair right? Otherwise, the guy will be spending a smaller percentage of his income on Big Macs than the lady.

Typical talk radio foxbot logic. One needs a house. One DOESN’T need a Big Mac.

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
3:56 pm

TP – If corporations end up shifting their current state tax burden onto consumers, then this reform change will increase the consumer’s tax burden by that much too much.

In other words…you don’t know
BTW corporations already shift their tax burden onto consumers

Joe Hussein Mama

April 3rd, 2013
3:57 pm

I. T. Middle — “Understand that if the poor in this country started to compete for resources (jobs, income) at the same rate I do, they wouldn’t be poor for long.”

Respectfully, the notion that hard work automatically equals wealth and/or success is FAR from axiomatic. I can point to the severely depressed area of Appalachian coal country where my parents grew up as a place where *everyone* busts their hind end on a routine basis and where practically *no one* ever attains wealth or success.

“The downside is that it is hard work, sometimes stressful, often risky, but completely rewarding.”

Again, I think this is a pipe dream on your part. There is no guarantee that one’s hard work will automatically result wealth/success.

“I dont think either the dems or the GOP have done much of anything to improve the lives of the poor.”

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. I was mistaken in my assumption that you thought conservatives were having more success in that regard than liberals were.

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
3:58 pm

“ALREADY pay a higher share of their income in Georgia than do the rich.”

That is so for most states? Why do the liberals not want to raise taxes? Are they afraid the conservatives will take away their platform? Oh raise the taxes on the rich and have redistribution. I guess the poor should get a college education and get that coz

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm

cozy job like most of the liberals here.

Jefferson

April 3rd, 2013
3:59 pm

Fred, easy to see the mindset, eh?

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
4:01 pm

“Again, I think this is a pipe dream on your part. There is no guarantee that one’s hard work will automatically result wealth/success.

“I dont think either the dems or the GOP have done much of anything to improve the lives of the poor.”

I agree!

williebkind

April 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm

“One DOESN’T need a Big Mac.”

Hey that is groceries!

Peace

April 3rd, 2013
4:02 pm

Kam @
3:34 pm

“Everybody” already “participates”.

Perhaps you are right. But some participate more than others. “Everybody” should participate at the same rate. That’s fair. Those who earn more also spend more, and therefore they actually ‘participate’ at a higher level than those of lesser means. The ‘evil’ 1 percent, which includes the people who write Jay’s paycheck, should not be singled out for a form of punishment through taxation for being successful.

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:03 pm

JHM. Agreed that effort alone does not always result in wealth, but at a minimum, effort is required. The folks in appalachia are incredibly hard working (have family that way), but have limited resources because everybody is pretty much in the same boat.
However, look at the immigrants that have come to the US with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and got to work. It wasn’t an overnight sensation, but most of them established a nice middle class life for themselves. If someone can come to this country (and not even speak the language) and make it, how is it that so many that are born here can’t seem to get up the first step.

Welcome to the Occupation

April 3rd, 2013
4:04 pm

In the middle: “Okay, what should it be. Tired of just hearing rhetoric. Tell me what you think people should make and who should decide that…”

Your premise seems to be that arbitrary setting of wages is not already being practiced right now.

What do you think CEOs have been doing ever since the 80s when corporate governance was rigged to favor execs, who were given wide powers to set their own compensation?

jms

April 3rd, 2013
4:06 pm

“Or how about this at the MacDonald’s… OK sir, based on your income, your Big Mac costs $75. For you ma’am, your Big Mac costs 35 cents. That’s fair right? Otherwise, the guy will be spending a smaller percentage of his income on Big Macs than the lady.

Typical talk radio foxbot logic. One needs a house. One DOESN’T need a Big Mac”

Missing the forest for the trees huh Fred? You and Jefferson are free to substitute any product or service of your choosing for the Big Mac. Of course that may make your head explode.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
4:07 pm

Perhaps you are right.

“Perhaps” don’t enter into it, I am exactly right.

But some participate more than others.

And now you’re just moving the goalposts. You implied earlier that there were those who didn’t “participate.”

“Everybody” should participate at the same rate. That’s fair. Those who earn more also spend more, and therefore they actually ‘participate’ at a higher level than those of lesser means. The ‘evil’ 1 percent, which includes the people who write Jay’s paycheck, should not be singled out for a form of punishment through taxation for being successful.

Now you’re just doubling down on teh stoopid seeing as how Jay just pwned your ass.

iBS Aplenty

April 3rd, 2013
4:08 pm

Difficult to simply compare effective income tax rates as a metric for “fairness.” The truly wealthy don’t simply get a “salary” and pay the standard tax rate. Their returns reflect the complex structure of their investments in a variety of assets and companies – and the complex set of IRS rules for taxing those assets and companies. The wealthy also typically give away a lot of their wealth to various IRS-acceptable charitable organizations which is where I personally think the government should tax the wealthy more – at death.

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:08 pm

Welcome to the Occupation

April 3rd, 2013
4:04 pm

Agreed. A few CEO’s make a lot, but it is just a few. Get beyong the fortune 500 and how many CEO’s are pulling in more than a few hundred k a year.

It isn’t as rampant as most think.

Welcome to the Occupation

April 3rd, 2013
4:10 pm

In the middle: “Agreed that effort alone does not always result in wealth, but at a minimum, effort is required”

Even that is not true. Those who make their money on capital — rentiers, to use the technical term — are precisely those who generate and reproduce wealth without so much as lifting a finger. In the most literal sense of the term, the amount of effort involved is zero.

And these are the people who have rewritten our tax laws to favor their own income over that earned through an actual hour of labor.

That’s all that the argument over capital gains loopholes is about.

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
4:10 pm

The ‘evil’ 1 percent, which includes the people who write Jay’s paycheck, should not be singled out for a form of punishment through taxation for being successful.

That stupid talk radio FOXBOT bumber sticker slogan is so wrong on so many levels that it’s sad to see a regular person even try to pawn it off. Especially on a blog where people think. It works at Lil Kyle’s of course but here? Nope.

Ronnie Raygun

April 3rd, 2013
4:12 pm

And of course stock and commodity purchases will logically be charged sales tax under this GOP tax scheme..right? Didn’t think so.

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
4:13 pm

I have to say that having blogged (it used to be called message boards) for 20 years or so, the system the AJC “picked” is the worst one and most user unfriendly I have ever encountered.

It’s a shame they won’t hire a competent IT staff.

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
4:14 pm

Whoops. Wrong tab on that last post. Sorry.

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
4:16 pm

Do the math and prove you point with actual data and not just conjecture……….I don’t fall for the “panties is a twist” logic. Prove to me that a family of 4 making 50,000 will pay more taxes. That is all I ask. I promise to keep an open mind..

I’m close to the situation described, family of three, annual income slightly above 51K

Assuming that 60% of my expenditures would be subject to an increased sales tax. and assuming a new rate of 11%: my tax bill would be $3366.

In 2012, I paid $1381. Increase of 243%.

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
4:17 pm

Whoops. Wrong tab on that last post. Sorry.

It doesn’t make it any less true

Fred ™

April 3rd, 2013
4:20 pm

I think SOMEONE had a little copy/paste fail………

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
4:23 pm

In fairness,I just realized that I failed to account for the 7% that I’m paying already ($1224.)

1224 + 1381 = 2605.

Under this scheme, I get the shaft for $761 a year.

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:24 pm

Mr_B – Let me fix this for you.. If you spent 30000 in 2012 you paid a total sales tax (georgia 4% base rate only because I don’t know what county you live in) of $1,200 plus your income tax of $1381 for a total tax burden of $2581.

If your income stayed flat for 2013 and the tax converted to a consumption tax adding (using jays numbers) an addition 3% to 4.8% for a total of 7% to 8.8%. At that rate with an expenditure of $30000 your total sales tax paid would be $2100 to $2640

Not quite a 243% increase

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
4:29 pm

I think SOMEONE had a little copy/paste fail………

What A Maroon!
– Thomas “Bugs Bunny” Jefferson

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
4:31 pm

Middle: See my 4:23.

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:34 pm

Mr_B. I did

One other thing to consider. I think we are using highly inlfated numbers for your annual consumption. Making 51K and taking out for Soc. Sec., Medicaid, Fed Income Tax, Health Insurance premiums, 401K contributions, and mortgage, you annual expenditures are probably much closer to 20K than 30K.

Welcome to the Occupation

April 3rd, 2013
4:36 pm

Peace: “The ‘evil’ 1 percent, which includes the people who write Jay’s paycheck..”

That’s funny, I thought it was those measly little D democratic actors known as subscribers and advertisers. Silly me.

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:37 pm

“That’s funny, I thought it was those measly little D democratic actors known as subscribers and advertisers. Silly me.”

It must go up before it comes down…

In the middle

April 3rd, 2013
4:37 pm

Say goodnight Gracie

Welcome to the Occupation

April 3rd, 2013
4:39 pm

I agree with you about the CEOs by the way, In the middle.

Peace

April 3rd, 2013
4:43 pm

By Jay’s logic (opinion), a family who makes $50K per year should be admitted to the movie theater for $5; the family that makes $100K should pay $10. And as far as Kam’s ‘logic’, well, never mind…. Talking about stoopid.

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
4:45 pm

Middle: Accepted point. Ran some quick numbers and just about split the difference right around 25k in taxable expenses. If Jay’s lowball 3% is correct I might about break even. 4.8 puts me in the red.

Leaving aside the question of why corporations (who are people too, my friend) sould be exempt from taxation.

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
4:51 pm

Assuming that 60% of my expenditures would be subject to an increased sales tax. and assuming a new rate of 11%: my tax bill would be $3366.

In 2012, I paid $1381. Increase of 243%.

Try again…you are added in the 7% you already pay in sales tax…your tax increase would be $1224 and when compared to $1381 you won’t pay anymore in state income tax…net tax decrease $157

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
4:54 pm

MrB
In my 4:51 I used your numbers and a 4% increase in sales tax

JamVet

April 3rd, 2013
4:57 pm

Piece at 4:43, that may be the most stupid and childish misrepresentation of someone else’s words that I have EVER read here.

Congrats.

You’re doing yeoman’s work in furthering jackassery…

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

April 3rd, 2013
5:03 pm

Piece at 4:43, that may be the most stupid and childish misrepresentation of someone else’s words that I have EVER read here.

And that’s sayin’ somethin’.

barking frog

April 3rd, 2013
5:12 pm

Will Ga. GOP dare to raise your taxes?

12:06 pm April 3, 2013, by Jay
……………………………………………………………………
Yes, if you are not wealthy.

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
5:18 pm

Erwin: Figured that one out already, and as I pointed out to ITM, reduced my taxable expenditures by 5K annually. Right now I’m paying about 1750 in sales taxes, 2750 under the proposed “Fair tax.” If nobody is lying, I would save $381 per year. Under a 4.8% increase I would pay $2950 and save about $181.

OK : so under this scenario, I might save a couple of bucks. The state says were broke NOW. How is reducing my tax burden slightly, and the tax burden of those above my bracket even more, AND reducing the corporate tax rate to zero going to impact the fact that my school district can’t afford to replace textbooks that are now eight years old?

Erwin's cat

April 3rd, 2013
5:21 pm

the fact that my school district can’t afford to replace textbooks that are now eight years old?

that’s a different question altogether…we’d need to know the specifics of your school district
I though property taxes when towards schools not sales tax

Matti

April 3rd, 2013
5:38 pm

indigo @ 3:24 pm

Normal – 2:38: 1. They seek a world where marriage is honored and upheld.

What’s the name of their spaceship?

Mr_B

April 3rd, 2013
5:50 pm

Cat: you’re right as far as the specific instance of textbooks, although the majority of funds spent I my rural, west Georgia county are of state origin. It’s hard to raise property taxes on pine trees.

Which leave unanswered my underlying question. If the state cannot now fund its responsibilities, as our leaders have been telling us for several years now, how is reducing the tax burden on its citizens going to make that situation any better?

One might be forgiven for suspecting that the proposed “reform” would be much like other GOP proposed “reforms” such as Medicare “reform” via insurance coupons and tort “reform” (we don’t care if the doctor was drunk when he operated, you can’t sue for more than actual damages, and we don’t think you were worth much anyway.) Then there’s “educational reform”, which means turning education over to people who think that a desirable educational outcome is an enhanced bottom line.

2013 NSW PAYROLL TAX

April 3rd, 2013
7:50 pm

[...] Will Ga. GOP dare to raise your <b>taxes</b>? | Jay Bookman [...]