|
This just in…
Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller * 12:53 pm - The House is now debating a proposed constitutional amendment that would double the state income tax rate for people who make more than $250,000 a year. Read the proposal here. Listen or watch the debate here. Background here. The proposal, if approved by both chambers and the voters, would raise $3 billion a year. * 1:03 pm - The House Republicans demanded a “Committee of the Whole” to discuss the topic in as much depth as the governor’s Gross Receipts Tax was last year. A motion to adjourn until Monday so that a Committee of the Whole could be held was defeated on party lines. * 1:56 pm - From the SJ-R…
Interesting that they only evacuated one floor. *** 3:20 pm *** The proposed constitutional amendment failed to garner enough votes to send it to the Senate. There were 60 “No” votes. At least that’s what I think the number was. I was momentarily distracted. It did fail, however. * 3:47 pm - The Tribbies have an update…
That last point would simply be a silly thing to do with a Constitutional amendment and Cross knows it. Not to say that this idea was great - it was fatally flawed on many levels - but that sort of detail should never be put into a Constitution. * 4:05 pm - Barack Obama sat down with Chicago TV reporters after his speech in Gary. CLTV’s Carlos Hernandez Gomez has the first one posted online. On a semi-related note… Um, dude? * 4:29 pm - AP story on the failed con amend…
I don’t really buy that one, either. When the economy is strong, they say “Don’t raise taxes or you’ll kill the expansion.” When it’s weak, they say “Don’t raise taxes or you’ll make things worse.” Pick one. Again, I’m not necessarily arguing for a tax hike here, but these circular arguments that are reported without challenge kinda bug me. * 4:39 pm - The roll call for the con amend vote is now online. It appears that some conservative Dems, Dems with GOP opponents, and Blagojevich allies voted “No.” Two Democrats (Hamos and Washington) were absent.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:09 pm:
Very intriguing idea.
I think, though, that they didn’t do their due diligence on this to get rid of problems and unintended consequences.
On a quick glance, there are some issues I see with it:
- It would penalize married couples (marriage penalty).
- Individuals would be paying more than corporations (6% vs. 4.8%).
Plus, I don’t think they have thought out enough how this would impact things like partnerships, trusts and estates, S corporations vs. c corporations, etc.
That’s because they ignore those intricacies, and just identify three categories of income earners:
- individuals under 250k
- individuals over 250k
- “corporations”
This looks well-intentioned, but creates a bunch of problems that need to be sorted out.
- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:10 pm:
They should change $250,000 a year to $1,000,000.
“A million dollars a year” is a much, much easier target.
– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
- Legal Eagle - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:11 pm:
“Tax and spend” is alive and well in Illinois! Shame on the majority party. Bigger and bigger government. Total power breeds total arrogance and hubris. Divided government works best, both in Illinois and in Washington.
- Sock Puppet Express - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:20 pm:
TC & The empty Suits are reeling…How will all their education zealots explain their votes?.
- CapitolView - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:21 pm:
Leagle Eagle has it exactly right. Our Federal Government was all one part and it’s all screwed up. Our State government is all one party and it’s all screwed up.
- jerry 101 - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:24 pm:
it’s about freaking time.
Pass this, use it to fund schools, and give the middle class a freaking break.
The rich (not Rich, of course) have gotten a free ride long enough.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:27 pm:
jerry 101 — exactly how have the rich gotten a ‘free ride’, if I make more I should give a larger % of what I make? How is that fair?
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:27 pm:
I think they need to work on this a little more. Otherwise - the only thing on the ballot will be a well-intentioned tax bill that may pass, but will screw up all kinds of things in the tax code.
Fix it, then vote on it.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:30 pm:
I’m fine with a progressive income tax, but this one sounds a bit flaky. Family income goes up to, say,
$250,200 and their income tax doubles? Crazy.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:32 pm:
Also it’s going to go into funds. We see how safe money is in funds.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:33 pm:
Why so specific about dollar amounts in a constitutional amendement? How about “allows for a graduated income tax as determined by the General Assembly?” Why no corporate component? Is this just a shell to get the ball rolling?
- Trapped In The Metro East - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:35 pm:
I think it makes a LOT of sense… not worried about the various forms of businesses as jj is. The Illinois 1040 form is simple and would be in the future if this is enacted: state takes 3% away from the first quarter-million each year and 6% of the rest. I don’t know too many ‘working families’ who make that much in 3 years, let alone one.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:40 pm:
Wordslinger—it’s virtually certainly a shell
to get the raise taxes on the middle class ball rolling. Without making cuts in state government or cuts in those lavish state pension and health benefits…even for those new employees entering state employment now who won’t be retiring until 2040 or beyond.
The wealthy will buy their way out of any tax increase via “campaign contributions.” And somebody has to pay.
- plutocrat03 - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:42 pm:
Poltics of avarice at its best.
If a graduated income tax is good policy then why not a graduated sales tax? 3% under 100, 6%to 10K, 10% more than that.
All you need is a good floor, under which no taxes are paid. A flat rate on top of that makes sense.
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:50 pm:
Trapped - you got it wrong. It would be 6% on all your income once your total reaches $250k. That isn’t my problem.
My problem is that it was poorly thought out.
My concern with “partnerships, trusts and estates” isn’t that they would be taxed mroe, it is that they would be tax-free because they don’t fit in the categories eligible to be taxed.
No tax on partnerships, trust and estates? That’s a huge problem.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:52 pm:
I think the one guy who spoke put it best.
If you vote against this you vote against 95% of the families in Illinois.
It’s my TOP tax plan (Tax On other People).
Also Trapped in Metro East (lots of folks may get caught by the ’selling the farm’ or selling the home) even working families.
If we want to talk about a graduated tax, lets do that.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:54 pm:
250,000 seems a bit high to start with. And I agree with the double at 250,000 point made earlier. Why not just do a graduated percentage tax that goes up as you earn more? And the marriage penalty point is true as well, why not halve the amount and have it apply to individuals regardless of their married/not married, children/no children status?
As to why graduated income taxes are fair, it is because those who have more, have more to lose from social disorder.
- Beowulf - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 1:56 pm:
I am all for this since I don’t make $250,000 a year or more. Let’s “stick it to The Man”. But, once “The Man” decides to move to another state where they don’t tax away the incentive for individuals who strive to improve their lot in life, we may just to have to re-think this “great idea”.
But, until then, “Let’s stick it to The Man.” We deserve what he has and we are entitled to it. After all, the world owes us a living.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:15 pm:
If you’re following the debate, the reverse Willie Horton strategy employed by Jim Durkin is pretty transparent.
A GOP lawmaker using wrongfully convicted blackmen to try to get Democrats to vote against more funding for education.
Wonder why he didn’t use Rolando Cruz as an example? Perhaps that’d not be well received on his side of the aisle.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:25 pm:
Are they going to name this the “Convert Illinois to a Solid Red State Bill”?
Seriously, between this and Fritchey’s “construction companies always at fault bill”, the Dems are doing the best they can to push me out of the party.
- Greg - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:31 pm:
Skeeter, I like it! Maybe they should add a contingency: these bills self-destruct if Hillary ends up topping the ticket…
- Crimefighter - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:35 pm:
It takes a constitutional amendment to raise taxes now? If there is a con-con, I suspect this is gonna get yanked out right away.
- Alan McNish - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:36 pm:
Keep it coming. The GOP will re-take power over the next two to three election cycles.
As they raise taxes and fees, companies and families are going to leave the state. Do they really think this is the best way to go?
Try cutting spending before raising taxes.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:37 pm:
So let me get this right the solution if I make 251K to cover the 7,500 extra tax I will now have to pay is….
Give 1K more to charity?
Brilliant.
You know if you want to raise my taxes, just say so. Stop this tax the ‘rich’ stuff.
Because I trust he whole ‘find thing’
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:40 pm:
To whom is much is given, much is asked?
Then lets do a graduated income tax then. Also let me get this right part of Rep Davis’ point is the bill will save the GA from themselves.
- North of I-80 - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:41 pm:
“The proposal…. would raise $3 billion a year”
OR drive some away to neighboring states. Are we in a race with Michigan to see who can destroy a state quicker?
What did they learn by applying the bottled-water tax? That people will shop across the border. What did Rockford learn by increasing the city tax? That shoppers will go out of the city.
I can relocate my business anywhere with access to FedEx and fast DSL… raise my costs and I will vote with my pocketbook.
Jerry101: the only “fair tax” is a flat rate 10 or 12 or 15% that applies to EVERYONE… tax welfare $$, the poor, the rich, the corps, the farmers with no upper OR lower cut-offs.
- Bill - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:55 pm:
Rep. Ramey doesn’t think that letting the voters decide is fair. It is a lot fairer than letting the GA decide.
- Anon - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:57 pm:
Cermak — “As to why graduated income taxes are fair, it is because those who have more, have more to lose from social disorder.”
Two things. First, having higher income does not necessarily translate into “having more.” Second, the reason you pay your doctor more than you pay the babysitter is because your doctor is giving you more. So how is it fair to make the doctor give the government more, too?
OneMan — “Give 1K more to charity? Brilliant.”
Except that charitable contributions aren’t deductible in Illinois.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 2:59 pm:
Bill,
I would have to agree with you on it’s better than the GA figuring it out.
If anyone thinks that this money is going to go on top of current funding and not replacing current funding so they can spend the money else is living in a dream land.
- A Citizen - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:12 pm:
Filthy lucre! The root of all evil . . . and shenanigans. Set a flat tax, do away with all others and be done with it.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:15 pm:
===Set a flat tax===
We have a flat tax already.
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:21 pm:
And it fails
- Bill - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:21 pm:
a little dissension in the ranks?
- OneMan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:22 pm:
Rich I heard 60 as well.
- Anonymous45 - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:24 pm:
is the governor going to veto this? he’d better…folks who earn more than $250,000/year are IL citizens too…sounds like a lame duck bill from a downstate legislator who is angry at all us rich folks in Chicago…he can’t get what he wants, so he’ll go after people who are not responsible for his frustrations…business as usual…
- A Citizen - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:24 pm:
Rich, I mean an all inclusive flat tax that replaces all others including sales, property, etc. I would also prefer a federal flat tax to the current IRS system, Huckaby had that right. People would have much more control over how much they pay - Spend more and you pay more taxes.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:25 pm:
Anonymous45, it failed. Also, the guv has no say over con amend proposals in the GA.
- Bill - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:25 pm:
Relax, it didn’t pass. Besides the governor doesn’t veto or sign a proposed ammendment.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:26 pm:
===an all inclusive flat tax that replaces all others including sales, property, etc===
That would be a pretty high tax.
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:26 pm:
Pretty impassioned speech by the Speaker there at the end.
Pretty big rebuke by his own party.
- A Citizen - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:28 pm:
“…That would be a pretty high tax….”
It already is - you just don’t see the forest for all those pesky trees. Obfuscation is the art of fooling the citizens. If they don’t know . . .
- Bill - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:28 pm:
There is something fishy going on. The Speaker knows how to count votes.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:30 pm:
They all knew it was gonna die, so I’ll bet the targets were off.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:31 pm:
A Citizen, what high tax? Our income tax is 3 percent.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:32 pm:
There is another, similar proposal in the Senate. It would simply allow the GA to impose a graduated tax and would cap the corp tax rate at a ratio of 8 to 5. SJRCA0007
Its in Rules (for now).
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:35 pm:
Pot, SJRCA 92, which does the same thing, was just moved to Senate Exec today.
- Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:36 pm:
Congratulations to Representative Smith for advancing a solution and for trying to fix our incredible regressive, soak-the-middle-class state tax system (high sales tax, low flat income tax and lots of excise taxes).
The interesting part of the debate is how it illuminated the different strategies and philosophies of economic development. Opponents advanced the notion that the way to generate wealth is to induce the wealthiest people to live here by not taxing them much at all, and then jobs and economic activity will follow. That’s basically what the Cayman Islands tries to do. And it makes us essentially a tax haven.
A better approach is to invest in making us the smartest people in the world and with the best infrastructure in the world. That’s basically what the Danish do (and most of Northern Europe) and why they have such a strong economy with such a relatively high standard of living.
Anyway, I blogged more about this substantive debate on Illinoize and my own Progressive Advocacy blog at www.djwinfo.blogspot.com
One other neat thing that happened is I heard a few Republican acknowledge the need to get rid of the flat tax provision of our Constitution and an openness to support an amendment (like Will Davis’ amendment — HJRCA23) to do that. That was new and encouraging (if implicit).
- A Citizen - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:36 pm:
Rich, the cumulative total of all of the taxes we pay is quite high. The flat tax would be much simpler, visible, controllable, and even across the board. The taxers are against it because if the average citizen realized the hosing we are getting it would be time for a tea party!
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
Let’s see.
$22 billion collected in property tax.
$10 billion collected in income tax currently.
$7 billion collected in sales tax.
A 12% income tax might get us to that $40 billion total.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:40 pm:
===and even across the board.===
when large Illinois corporations are all paying their state income taxes, then maybe. Until then, all they’re essentially paying now (besids payroll stuff) are property and (non-exempt) sales taxes.
In other words, simple solutions are often neither.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:41 pm:
If this state wants to completely abolish property and sales taxes and set a flat income tax of, let’s say, 10 percent, I’d be willing to entertain the idea. Until then, could those who bash progressive income taxes please spend the time to figure out or at least research how disproportionately property and sales taxes fall upon the poor and the middle class?
Illinois current system makes it, in effect, a Midwestern tax haven for the super rich, a purgatory for the middle class and a torture chamber for the poor. Fat lot of good the rich tax exile thing does us; our state is broke, our services stink, and we can’t even get St. Louis’s and Minneapolis’s super rich to move here. I guess the services you get from the localities and the state in places like Ladue, MO and Wayzata, MN are worth the extra income tax. Who’d have thunk it?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:42 pm:
Also, try convincing wealthy suburbs that they’ll get their fair share of school tax money if we abolish the property tax. Won’t happen. Pie in the sky. Move along.
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:48 pm:
There are a few things that could fix this bill -
Make it marginal - 3% on your first $250k, then 6% thereafter.
Fix the marriage penalty.
Better define income groups. Don’t do it so sloppily.
This just wasn’t that well thought out. It looks like it was put out there in a rush for some reason, and wasn’t serious.
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:49 pm:
Of course - by making it marginal, you probably lose 30 - 50% of your revenue.
- nonewtaxes - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:49 pm:
I find all of these class warfare funny. The reason that most people are rich is because they earned it. They worked hard, had an idea, or took a risk. They produce more for the economy. To punish productivity is just dumb. It is not fair to take more money from rich people just because they have more, and $250,000 isn’t that rich.
Please stop with class warfare though. If you want to become richer do something about it. Don’t complain that others have more than you and that you deserve a piece of their earning.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:50 pm:
A Citizen, go and check data on how much the state and local tax take is by state. You’ll find that Illinois is one of the lower tax states in the country, one of the lowest in the Midwest. It doesn’t seem like it when you’re mortgaging the future of your first born to the government in sales tax when buying an appliance, but it’s true. Our tax load is simply distributed in such a way as to give the rich a total pass compared to other Midwestern states, while nailing the poor, and cheating everybody on the quality of services.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:55 pm:
jj, making it marginal would cost about $800 million - far less than a third - which is why they didn’t do it.
- nonewtaxes - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:55 pm:
If you have to tax anything you should tax consumption, not production. Why is the government entitled to your earnings?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 3:56 pm:
===Why is the government entitled to your earnings?===
Because our state Constitution, approved by voters, says so.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:02 pm:
nonewtaxes, there’s a country in Europe that has tried paying for its government with consumption taxes more than anything else, and levying relatively low income taxes on the rich, made still lower by the fact that its equivalent of FICA is tax-deductible. It’s called France. Last I heard, most people around here were not holding it up as an example of economic dynamism.
- nonewtaxes - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:03 pm:
I think we should have a con-con then to abolish income tax in illinois.
I know it is our constitution but what right does the state have to take 3% of our money just because we decided to work?
- nonewtaxes - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:07 pm:
well there are 7 states in the US that don’t have a state income tax and 2 that only dividends and interest. So nearly 20% of the states don’t have an income tax.
I guess be thankful we don’t live in NYC where they have a city income tax.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:10 pm:
Florida has no income tax, but they tax services and tourists. We don’t have that sort of tourism here, understandably. Texas has no income tax, but they have oil and they redistribute property taxes.
- nonewtaxes - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:15 pm:
I think we should just increase the tax on Cubs tickets, the demand is pretty inelastic and being a Sox fan I have no intention of ever going to see one of their games. Plus you get a lot of people from out of state. So its win-win right?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:17 pm:
OK, now you got me.
Agreed.
Go Sox.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:24 pm:
To those who insist that ANY kind of graduated income tax “punishes productivity”: come on, is a change from 3 to 6 percent REALLY going to stop you from trying to make more money if you have the ability to do so? If you’re making $230,000 or $240,000 and are just below the cutoff, I could see that happening. But if you make $200,000 now and have a chance to boost it to $300K, $400K or more, is the 6 percent tax really going to stop you from pursuing that?
If the higher income brackets were being taxed at 20 or 30 percent or more (as I think the federal government used to do), I could see that as punishing productivity, but not 6 percent, especially when other states tax that much or more.
For me the problem with the proposal was not the graduated nature of the tax, but the sad fact that we cannot count on the money to be properly spent.
- Easy - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:52 pm:
nonewtaxes-
I agree. Raising taxes on sox tickets would not raise any revenue. However, if they increase the fines for mullett sporting drunks who run on the field at the Cell, well now you’re talking real revenue enhancement.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 4:55 pm:
That mullet sporting drunk got his start that day at Wrigley.
Just sayin’.
- BIG R.PH. - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
Why don’t we just take a percentage of revenue from our neighboring states. After all we have enriched them for the last 8 years. All we want is just a little kickback. (We know how that is done in Illinois)
- jj - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:07 pm:
Rich -
I guess we got to hand it to the Sox. They know how to finish strong.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:08 pm:
As 2005 proved.
- Easy - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:14 pm:
Was Canseco your strength coach in 2005?
- grand old partisan - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:31 pm:
“When the economy is strong, they say ‘Don’t raise taxes or you’ll kill the expansion.’ When it’s weak, they say ‘Don’t raise taxes or you’ll make things worse.’ Pick one.”
= Are you suggesting that those sentiments are somehow contradictory? Or are you suggesting that Republicans are somehow obligated to periodically support either the slowdown of a growing economy or the weakening of an already stagnant one?
Regardless of which point it is that you are trying to make (and, please, let me know if there is some other explainiation that I have missed), I don’t think your logic holds water. Raising taxes has a negative impact on the economy, regardless of what it’s current state is; and there will always be a valid argument to be made against either slowing down a strong economy or further weakening an already struggling one.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 5:34 pm:
What I’m saying GOP, is that if you’re always gonna be against a tax hike, then say so.
- Levois - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 6:01 pm:
Why discuss raising taxes now? It sounds like a bad idea. I wish I knew something about polling to track how people really think about this proposal.
- some former legislative intern - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 6:12 pm:
shame on EVERYONE who voted no. Our elected officials had the chance to pay for school construction AND provide tax relief for the middle class (by raising the exemption) by raising taxes on the super wealthy.
Our society cannot grow without increased contributions from those who can pay. Those who make over $250,000 can pay more.
- Trafficmatt - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 7:09 pm:
“When the economy is strong, they say ‘Don’t raise taxes or you’ll kill the expansion.’ When it’s weak, they say ‘Don’t raise taxes or you’ll make things worse.’ Pick one.”
Rich - what you are not considering is the competition between states to attract new business or business expansion. Let’s say a major business is looking to move their headquarters and they have narrowed the list to Chicago or say Indianapolis. If the head executives (i.e. those making over $250,000/yr) look at the situation and realize that here in Illinois they are going to get hosed, they are going to factor that into their decision. They should be looking out for the company, but that’s not exactly how it works in reality.
Illinois is just bad for business and our leaders are going to keep sucking every drop of blood out of the business community until noone is left.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 7:13 pm:
===Rich - what you are not considering is===
Like I said above, if you’re against all income tax hikes no matter what, just say so. That’s far more honest than changing your excuse as the economy shifts.
- Bookworm - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 8:46 pm:
The only two certainties are death and taxes… and there’s never a “good” time for either.
- muon - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 9:02 pm:
As many have noted there are a great many flaws in the proposed amendment. The problems start from the lack of a marginal increase that would make it a graduated tax. The attempt to fix a specific threshold is unusual and inappropriate in the constitution. The impact would create a great deal of work for tax preparers to deal with the stark threshold.
IMO, a serious amendment would have addressed these problems, and there have been such amendments filed already. If the goal was a progressive income tax, why not call one like HJRCA23?
- Trafficmatt - Thursday, Apr 10, 08 @ 9:13 pm:
Rich, yes - I am generally against tax hikes. Easy for me to admit that. However, I don’t think that has anything to do with the honesty of my inquiry.
From that perspective, I haven’t changed my opinion and am not making excuses. I would argue that whether we are in a good economy or a bad economy, we should think about the competition between states in terms of economic development.
I also think it would be VERY fair to say that one of the biggest problems that we are having today with the budget stems from heavy spending and expansion of programs when the economy was soaring. Now that we are not doing as well, and the tax revenue is not as high, it is a big problem. I would suggest that policy should be somewhat blind of good times or bad because the other will be just around the corner. Note - somewhat blind, not totally.