PDA

View Full Version : The Next Right: Maine Democrats Slash Income Tax, Create Flat Rate



SkinsHokieFan
June-24th-2009, 11:39 PM
These are certainly Democrats I can vote for.

Bravo Maine Dems

http://www.thenextright.com/matthew-gagnon/maine-democrats-slash-income-tax-create-flat-rate


Maine Democrats Slash Income Tax, Create Flat Rate

Submitted by Matthew Gagnon on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 14:30

The Maine Legislature just pushed through a massive tax reform bill in the Pine Tree State. This was not just a token "move the chairs around" reform bill - it was far reaching, ambitious and will genuinely help move Maine in the right direction on this issue. The Wall Street Journal went as far as to call it the "Maine Miracle".

But here's the kicker - the bill was proposed by Democratic Governor John Baldacci, and overwhelmingly supported by Maine Democrats.

Baldacci is quite unpopular in the state, but its hard not to admire a lot of what he has done in his second term as Governor. He had barely even been sworn in again, and already he was pushing to consolidate the 152 school districts in the state down to 26. He's also no fan of REAL ID, and was the first Governor in the United States to sign a same-sex marriage bill without being ordered to do so by a court - something I happen to consider a point in his favor.

Yes, I know, a few quality policies does not a good Governor make, and he still has things like Dirigo Health as major black marks - but still, he's done a lot right and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

But whatever he has done right previously pales in comparison with the landmark tax reform bill he just pushed through and then signed. The bill reforms Maine's tax structure in a number of important ways, but the crux of it comes down to the following changes:

The states draconian and punative progressive income tax rate which topped out at 8.5% has been essentially changed to a flat tax (you heard me) of 6.5%. The only exception to this is an additional 0.35% surtax charge for those making over a quarter of a million dollars.
The state budget will be cut by 300 million to offset the losses, coupled with some tax loophole closings and extensions on the sales tax.
And to those critics of "tax cuts for the rich" that the new flat tax creates, Baldacci sounded off:


"Without employers, you don't have employees. The best social services program is a job."

Incredible. Well said, Governor.

Granted, the Republicans haven't had much of a chance to impliment this type of agenda since Jock McKernan was Governor (and he was hampered by an aggressive and hyper-partisan Democratic legislature), but it is to Baldacci's credit that he was the one - despite his party affiliation - who finally pushed through a comprehensive tax reform bill.

But, this betrays a larger question - why did Baldacci and the Democrats do this? Are they converts of a fiscally conservative agenda (no), or is something else going on here?

The answer is pretty simple. In 2004, Maine Republicans essentially split the Maine House and Senate 50-50 with the Democrats. Maine is not a blue state. Its not a red state either - as I've said before, its a gray state with a very slight blue lean, but it is completely winnable for competent Republicans with the proper message.

But Maine Democrats rode the anti-Bush wave in 2006, and the Obama wave in 2008, and are now in complete control of every level of government. However, now that they have power, unemployment is spiking high, wages are stagnant, young people are leaving the state and taxes are strangling the population. Those of us in the know smelled major Republican gains in the House, Senate and even the Governor's Mansion.

Add to that the fact that Maine Republicans seem to be getting their act together. Rather than the tired, poor choices presented to Maine voters in the 2006 election, there is actually an impressive crop of Republicans running for Governor in 2010 - cheif among them is Matt Jacobson, President and CEO of Maine & Company, an organization aimed at bringing businesses to Maine.

Jacobson has been carving out a decidedly pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs economic agenda for his candidacy, and it is already starting to resonate. Indeed, Jacobson has been described as a "human jobs machine", as his position is literally devoted to doing just that - creating jobs. In this environment, that type of economic message can quickly light on fire.

Maine Republicans seem to have become clued into the fact that this brand of conservatism actually sells pretty well in Maine and are far more interested (for once) in talking about them now. For the next two years Jacobson and the Maine GOP will likely be hammering that message non-stop, hoping it will sweep them back into prominence.

But in this one move, Maine Democrats attempted to cut Jacobson and other GOP primary candidates, as well as the statewide Republican message model off at the knees.

They (Democrats) are now able to campaign on the largest tax cut in Maine history. They are now able to campaign on approving a budget that allocated fewer dollars than the previous year for the first time in three decades. They can campaign on making Maine's business environment more friendly, and its tax burden less cumbersome. Essentially, they out Republican-ed the Republicans, and may have just guaranteed themselves a continued majority for the forseeable future.

One wonders why national Democrats didn't take a similar strategy upon sweeping into power in 2008. Imagine if the Democrats pushed for a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, and preached a more conservative fiscal policy. After the Bush years and the gross excesses, massive government growth, huge budget deficits and fiscal irresponsibility that flowed from all that, they could have dealt a death blow to the GOP. But they didn't do that.

Luckily for Maine Republicans, they have no such history of hypocritical behavior while in power - partly because they have been on the outside looking in for so long. Thus, this newfound fiscal sanity by the Democrats won't necessarily be a crushing move, just a damaging one.

Fortunately (in a political sense), Maine has a long way to go in terms of taxes and business climate - they will still be in the middle of the pack for total taxation, and last year Maine was ranked as having the third worst business climate in the United States, and even this bold move won't suddenly mean Maine is out of the woods yet.

Matt Jacobson is still a phenomenal candidate, and the Maine Democrats have already claimed about all the seats they are probably able to at this point, so 2010 is still looking up for the GOP in the Pine Tree State.

But with a bold stroke of political brilliance, the Democrats may have mitigated the damage a great deal. I admire such a level of political accumen.

Baculus
June-25th-2009, 01:24 AM
An interesting article -- thanks for posting.

Enzo
June-26th-2009, 12:16 AM
I'm all for a flat tax but a true flat tax. The wealthy only want a flat income tax. They don't want to pay the same percentage into Social Security & Medicare tax that most of the nation pays. They want to keep their capital gains tax at 15% or even make it lower. I'm so sick of the rich corporate executives complaining about taxes. They constantly complain about the working class not paying enough taxes. Yet they are the ones that have sent all the descent paying blue collar jobs to third world countries, Communist China being the main one. Gee, no wonder working people don't pay more taxes could it be because they don't make much money. I think it is a shame that most CEOs pay a lower tax rate than the people who work below them. I say give them exactly what they want a flat tax. Make them pay Social Security tax on 100% of their earnings like everyone else (self employed people pay twice what everyone else pays). Raise the rate of capital gains tax to match that of income tax & take Social Security taxes out of that just like they do income. Do that & then will see how much they really love a flat tax.

SkinsHokieFan
June-26th-2009, 08:07 AM
I'm all for a flat tax but a true flat tax. The wealthy only want a flat income tax. They don't want to pay the same percentage into Social Security & Medicare tax that most of the nation pays. They want to keep their capital gains tax at 15% or even make it lower. I'm so sick of the rich corporate executives complaining about taxes. They constantly complain about the working class not paying enough taxes. Yet they are the ones that have sent all the descent paying blue collar jobs to third world countries, Communist China being the main one. Gee, no wonder working people don't pay more taxes could it be because they don't make much money. I think it is a shame that most CEOs pay a lower tax rate than the people who work below them. I say give them exactly what they want a flat tax. Make them pay Social Security tax on 100% of their earnings like everyone else (self employed people pay twice what everyone else pays). Raise the rate of capital gains tax to match that of income tax & take Social Security taxes out of that just like they do income. Do that & then will see how much they really love a flat tax.


Thats not really a flat tax.

My ideal flat tax would be a flat tax on all sources of income (capital gains, wages, etc) with 0 deductions.

You could lower the rate, but rich people would carry the burden. The simpler the tax code, the fewer games the rich can play with the tax code

Popeman38
June-26th-2009, 08:13 AM
Thats not really a flat tax.

My ideal flat tax would be a flat tax on all sources of income (capital gains, wages, etc) with 0 deductions.

You could lower the rate, but rich people would carry the burden. The simpler the tax code, the fewer games the rich can play with the tax codeWhy is it that no one seems to get this. 15% tax rate across the board. The ENTIRE board.

Destino
June-26th-2009, 08:22 AM
Thats not really a flat tax.

My ideal flat tax would be a flat tax on all sources of income (capital gains, wages, etc) with 0 deductions.

You could lower the rate, but rich people would carry the burden. The simpler the tax code, the fewer games the rich can play with the tax code

That is a flat tax I would support. Trouble is that no one in washington on either party would allow that to happen. I'd couple that system with pay as you go. That way everytime someone wants to fight a war or launch a shiny new entitlement program the entire nation feels it in their pocket books immediately.

SnyderShrugged
June-26th-2009, 08:24 AM
I think it's great that the state is trying to find alternatives to their tax problem.

I also don't agree with a flat tax at the Federal level, as it's just another replacement for the income tax that I wholeheartedly believe should not exist.

SkinsHokieFan
June-26th-2009, 08:26 AM
I think it's great that the state is trying to find alternatives to their tax problem.

I also don't agree with a flat tax at the Federal level, as it's just another replacement for the income tax that I wholeheartedly believe should not exist.

At least a flat tax would truly be legal (16th amendment games not withstanding)

The many advantages of it would be how much money would be saved on accountants and games people play with the tax code. You wouldn't need nearly as many auditors, and Americans wouldn't be spending 100 dollars for TurboTax and putting it to a more efficient use

Maine Democrats in my opinion should be applauded.

SnyderShrugged
June-26th-2009, 08:28 AM
At least a flat tax would truly be legal (16th amendment games not withstanding)

The many advantages of it would be how much money would be saved on accountants and games people play with the tax code. You wouldn't need nearly as many auditors, and Americans wouldn't be spending 100 dollars for TurboTax and putting it to a more efficient use

Maine Democrats in my opinion should be applauded.

Yes, I definitely applaud the maine democrats for this stance and if we must have an income tax, then a national flat tax is probably better than what we have now.

I just dont beleive it goes far enough and I'd like to see the 16th ammendment repealed (that would also negate the Federal reserve act too)

Hubbs
June-26th-2009, 08:45 AM
That is a flat tax I would support. Trouble is that no one in washington on either party would allow that to happen. I'd couple that system with pay as you go. That way everytime someone wants to fight a war or launch a shiny new entitlement program the entire nation feels it in their pocket books immediately.

The big problem with that is that politicians would never, ever differentiate between wars that are really for American survival and wars that aren't. Take WWII versus the War on Terror, for example - while America itself wasn't immediately threatened in the 40's, both Japan and Germany had all sorts of plans for making life hell for the United States if they gained full control of the Pacific and Europe, and I absolutely believe that they would have followed through on those plans. On the other hand, at the end of the day, the most Al Qaeda is gonna pull off is a few isolated incidents. Even the worst-case scenario of terrorists setting off a nuke just isn't the same as the long-term economic and military disaster that an Axis victory in WWII would have been, yet there is absolutely, positively no way that Congress wouldn't have treated both the same as far as "pay as you go."

hokie4redskins
June-26th-2009, 10:04 AM
My ideal flat tax would be a flat tax on all sources of income (capital gains, wages, etc) with 0 deductions.



Zero deductions?

What incentive would home owners have to spend thirty years worth of interest?

If there is no incentive to buy, there is no incentive to build.

Zero deductions would pretty much cripple the housing/construction industry and would actually make renting more economically prudent than owning. So much for life, liberty, and property.

SkinsHokieFan
June-26th-2009, 10:10 AM
Zero deductions?

What incentive would home owners have to spend thirty years worth of interest?

If there is no incentive to buy, there is no incentive to build.

Zero deductions would pretty much cripple the housing/construction industry and would actually make renting more economically prudent than owning. So much for life, liberty, and property.

I think it would take away false incentives.

Because of that mortgage deduction (and now Obama's 8g's) there is/was HUGE incentive to overpay for a home.

And we see the mess we are in today.

Give me real incentives, not false incentives created by the tax code. And the Declaration of Independence said "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" I am still trying to find that whole property part :)

hokie4redskins
June-26th-2009, 10:26 AM
I think it would take away false incentives.

Because of that mortgage deduction (and now Obama's 8g's) there is/was HUGE incentive to overpay for a home.

And we see the mess we are in today.

Give me real incentives, not false incentives created by the tax code. And the Declaration of Independence said "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" I am still trying to find that whole property part :)

Eh, they just interchanged Locke's "property" with some nebulous language that could be interpreted as anything. My theory is that the Founders had no clue what lay past the Ohio Valley, thus didn't want unknown lands being claimed without their acknowledged jurisdiction.

Though, "life, liberty, and property" is found in the Bill of Rights.

I respectfully disagree. There are simply way too many factors that got us into this mess. If one reason is the mortgage deduction, it's a very small reason. If somebody wanted to overpay for a house and voluntary live WAY outside their means simply for a higher tax rebate, they're not smart enough to own in the first place.

And THAT's what got us into this mess.

Your analogy is no different than an underpriced house at 14% interest. But what's the incentive to sky rocket the interest rate? Nobody could afford even a modestly priced house.

Regardless, abandoning the mortgage deduction would have devastating effects on our economy. You're killing inherent incentives of ownership.

Larry
June-26th-2009, 10:44 AM
Zero deductions?

What incentive would home owners have to spend thirty years worth of interest?

If there is no incentive to buy, there is no incentive to build.

Zero deductions would pretty much cripple the housing/construction industry and would actually make renting more economically prudent than owning. So much for life, liberty, and property.

1) You seem to have assumed that "home ownership" = "debt-based home ownership"

And to further assume that it equals "tax subsidized debt-based home ownership".

2) Perhaps they'd have the same incentive they have now: They want to own a house.

Larry
June-26th-2009, 10:49 AM
Regardless, abandoning the mortgage deduction would have devastating effects on our economy. You're killing inherent incentives of ownership.

If you think the mortgage interest deduction is the only advantage of home ownership, then you don't understand what it really is.

For one thing, the mortgage interest deduction doesn't make homeowners any money at all. All it does is to turn a drain on their money (interest payments) into a slightly lesser drain on their income.

There seem to be a lot of people (yes, I understand that you haven't said this. I'm more addressing the folks I keep seeing who do say this.) who think that the mortgage interest deduction turns an interest payment that throws away $2000 of their income every month, into a profit.