vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.14.2007

Piece of the puzzle

In Friday's New York Times crossword puzzle, #14 across was about none other than Vermont's junior senator. "Vermont senator Sanders," the clue reads. There are six space for the answer.

If you're sitting in Toledo doing the crossword, this one's probably harder than #60 across: "Engine manufacturer Briggs & _____." In this case, the puzzler has to know not only who Vermont's senator Sanders is, but that he goes by Bernie rather than Bernard.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 10:41 AM |

Comments:

This is kind of random...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:40 AM, November 14, 2007

"Yeller?"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:45 AM, November 14, 2007

yawn....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:05 PM, November 14, 2007

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?"

-George Bush to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:09 PM, November 14, 2007

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?"

Because it incents those with drive, initiative and ambition. It's called Capitalism. The days of entitlements really are long gone.

And apparently I will need it to live in Burlington after the Progs change the city Property tax scheme to further punish the those of us that have worked hard to succeed.

As a thought, it really is a better permanent solution to encourage people to work hard to earn more money than it is to encourage them to hope that if they wait long enough someone else's hard earned income will be redistribute to them.

Like the VT tax burden isn't high enough already.

from the BFP...read it and weep:

"Burlington explores income-based tax

Published: Wednesday, November 14, 2007
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer

Burlington might substitute an income-based property tax for noneducational taxes as early as July 2009."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:57 PM, November 14, 2007

Tell it to GWB.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:58 PM, November 14, 2007

""I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

—George W Bush Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:59 PM, November 14, 2007

"Yeller?"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:16 PM, November 14, 2007

"Tell it to GWB."

Clever.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:56 AM, November 15, 2007

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

I agree. Bin Laden is a coward. He attacked and killed innocent people. Then as any true coward does when confronted with the consequences of his actions, he runs and hides leaving his minions behind. If he were convicted to his cause, he would be visible and leading his cause, not hiding in some mountain cave.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:27 AM, November 15, 2007

"Like the VT tax burden isn't high enough already."

I guess that depends on your perspective. If you live in Burlington and live in a home valued at $250,000, you pay $1,675 in municipal (non-education) property tax.

If you earn $200,000, that's 0.8% of your gross income. But if you live in the same house and earn $75,000, you pay 2.2% of your gross income.

It's not surprising that some would be find that arrangement satisfactory, but for most people, it is terribly unfair.

If it ever comes to a vote, you will have an opportunity to vote against it (if you live in Burlington). But I suspect an awful lot of people (especially retired folks on fixed incomes whose home values keep rising) will understand that this approach is a much more equitable way of raising money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:36 AM, November 15, 2007

Of course this is nothing more than communism, continually punish the producer and reward the shiftless.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:18 PM, November 15, 2007

If you earn $200k, you probably have a house that is valued much higher than that of a person who earns $75k. You probably have much more debt too, especially when compared to retirees. The $200k earner could be paying 30% of their income as mortgage on the property, while the retiree is debt-free. It's possible that when you factor in debt obligations, the $200k earner is not any better off than the $75k earner.

I think the retirees will understand that they will pay less money with the income tax and the issue of fairness will never cross their minds. Since fairness implies one pays his own way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:24 PM, November 15, 2007

"the $200k earner is not any better off than the $75k earner."

In your example the only reason for this is that the $200k earner chooses to spend more money, buy a bigger house, and take on more debt.

It's silly to say that a $200k earner is no better off than a $75k earner.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:49 PM, November 15, 2007

"I guess that depends on your perspective."

That's one of the few things you have right.

Let's see...what's fair.

1. People comsuming the same services should pay the same amount for those services. A can of corn at Shaws costs the same whether you make $30K or $100K. That's fair. The approach here is once again to base the burden on what a person has, not what a person uses.

2. In the proposal, there seems to be no change for rental property. Begs the question of why that's right. What's good for one should be good for all.

3. If you really feel compassion for Granny, deal with the issue and give seniors an exemption spreading the remaining burden evenly among the rest. This isn't about Granny. I believe it's once again only about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

4. The argument that those who have more should pay more is only valid and fair if those without more are actually attempting to raise their earning potential so they are not a permanent burden on the rest. I suspect most are not. There is no clamoring that I see for better jobs in VT, a rush back for career training, etc. This is merely a socialistic redistribution of income incentivizing the productive to be less so and encouraging the less productive to remain so.

5. the theory in the Free Press was this was a way to offset the impact of escalating home values. This couldn't be farther from the truth. This is an open-ended tax increase. Under the current system, you only see a step up in taxes paid if you re-assess property values. Here's an idea, don't raise assessed property values. If there is some obscure reason to do so, reduce the millage rate. The cost of services doesn't go up just because property values do. Property taxes go up because your expense budgets go up and you need the revenue. Control expenses then talk about tax increases.

6. For the poor guy in your example who pays 2.2% of his income on taxes because he bought a home beyond his means, that's a personal decision he made and he should live with the consequences of his choices. Buy or rent something you can afford. That's what most fiscally responsible people do. Extend the logic further...he probably drives a Kia and his car payment is proportionally more than someone else who may drive a BMW. Should we tax the BMW driver so we can help the Kia driver upgrade to a VW? And what if they both drove Kia's. I guess we would still tax him so proportionalize the effect of their respective car payments.

No one should look for their lifestyle to be subsidized.

This whole issue is a Prog-led issue and from my perspective entirely about redistributing more income from those the Progs perceive have too much to those they perceive need more.

It is really about perspective. S

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:02 PM, November 15, 2007

I think I am learning something about the Progressives. They really do not stand for achieving a better society. They are really all about sustaining mediocrity. Clearly it's not okay to aspire to excel, for if you do, you will be identified, vilified and required to pay others for your self-earned success.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:15 PM, November 15, 2007

So Warren Buffett and Bill Gates should pay the same in taxes as you and me?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:56 PM, November 15, 2007

"Of course this is nothing more than communism, continually punish the producer and reward the shiftless."

Even the most socialistic countries in the EU, France and Germany, are realizing the error of its Socialist ways and are shifting away from it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:56 PM, November 15, 2007

It's a shame really. But you can't turn back the clock; much as you would like to. The United States has lived with the graduated income tax for almost 100 years. You can cry about it and you can call it "socialism" or "communism" all you like. But it's not going to change.

"In the proposal, there seems to be no change for rental property. Begs the question of why that's right. What's good for one should be good for all."

True. But renters pay the owner's property tax through their rent and have access to a renters rebate to cover part of that. If the proposed tax was applied to renters, there's no way to ensure that landlords wouldn't just charge them for his/her share anyway (unless we had rent control). THAT is why renters are not included. Note: Wouldn't it have been easier to ask the question instead of making an assumption?

"The argument that those who have more should pay more is only valid and fair if those without more are actually attempting to raise their earning potential so they are not a permanent burden on the rest."

Nice. A family earning $75,000 is "a burden on the rest"?! Please explain how they are a "burden" on you.

And I've never met anyone that owned a home who wasn't "attempting to raise their earning potential". What in hell are you thinking? Are you really suggesting that the middle class (we are talking about homeowners here) is not trying to get ahead?

"Here's an idea, don't raise assessed property values."

Are you really that uninformed? It's a state law for goodness sake.

As for "the poor guy in your example who pays 2.2% of his income on taxes because he bought a home beyond his means": you can't really be serious.

Nobody said he was in default or couldn't afford his mortgage payment or his taxes. We just said it's unfair that he pay such a larger % of his income than the other guy.

And I guess it never occurred to you that the home he bought for $175,000 (which is what he could afford at the time) is now worth $250,000 and the taxes have gone up a lot faster then his income. And that's exactly the point. The property tax system is not based on ability to pay (like the income tax).

"No one should look for their lifestyle to be subsidized."

"Lifestyle"? You mean buying a home?

I guess that means you would vote to repeal the federal tax benefits for those who buy Hummers, or any of the other tax provisions that benefit the wealthy?

As I said, you are free to vote against it. But those of you who refer to hard working families as "mediocre" and a "burden" should be ashamed of yourselves.

And as for a "better society", if selfishness is the moral basis for your ideal society, then yes, I think we can do a lot better.

Finally, using words like "communism" really doesn't scare people anymore. It worked pretty well years ago but I think most Vermonters are tired of those kinds of labels and are smart enough to see through such baloney. I mean really, red baiting hasn't stopped 60% of Vermonters from electing Bernie all these years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:12 PM, November 15, 2007

You do realize that some
houses that were once valued at 160,000 were suddenly raised to 325,000 in value in the last assessment in Burlington? Try managing that on a fixed income.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:16 PM, November 15, 2007

You make the incorrect assumption that people purchased homes above and beyond their means--something that is rather difficult to do in reality anyway--when in fact what they already owned was increased for tax purposes more than 100 fold.

Recall all the more affluent Essex residents making the same complaints recently? Are they guilty of the same?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:20 PM, November 15, 2007

You make it sound like the City is playing games with the appraisals!

If the house is worth $325,000 it should be assessed that way.

The issue with fairness in appraisals to assess each property at "FAIR MARKET VALUE" and after teh entore Grand List is completed , to adjust the tax rate so that the same amount of revenue is raised as if the appraisal didn't happen.

There are so many cynics, and negative attitudes that it is no wonder that the number of good people running for public office is declining.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:23 PM, November 15, 2007

I'm merely pointing out that the last assessment was in fact a hardship for many people on fixed incomes--and that is the reason for the proposal currently before the city. I said nothing derogatory about the City. I was merely responding to someone who has a twisted view of the situation.
As far as I know no senior citizens have urges this nor are they trying to take advantage of their wealthier counterparts as suggested above.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:28 PM, November 15, 2007

"In your example the only reason for this is that the $200k earner chooses to spend more money, buy a bigger house, and take on more debt. "

No its not. Low income earners who have no mortage on their $250k property, can have more taxable income than higher earners who just acquired a mortgage on the equivalent property. Even though gross income is substantially different, taxable income is not.

In this case, if you base the income tax on gross income, the person with the better balance sheet pays less taxes, regardless of the fact that both have the same taxable income and live in equivalent houses.

Frankly, I think the people left in Burlington who actually earn money will join their their peers who have already moved outside of city limits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:38 PM, November 15, 2007

I bet the income tax will be a wash for many people. Those with greater incomes already get taxed more because they have more valuable properties.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:46 PM, November 15, 2007

"You do realize that some
houses that were once valued at 160,000 were suddenly raised to 325,000 in value in the last assessment in Burlington? Try managing that on a fixed income."

The only reason it was a problem was that they did not reduce the millage rate proportionally, which they could have. They wanted to raise taxes and have something to blame it on. They could have managed it to a zero increase had they wanted to. Don't you get it? They just wanted to have something to blame a tax increase on ....those darned real estate values!

With an income tax, there is no assessed value to raise. When they need an increase in revenue, they will just raise the tax rates.

And by the way I endured a 40% increase in my taxes due to changed assessed values. It may be surprising to you but my employer didn't give me a raise to offset it either. So it's not just those on fixed incomes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:40 PM, November 15, 2007

It's those evil seniors again. You presumably will be getting raises though. They will not.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:54 PM, November 15, 2007

"You make the incorrect assumption that people purchased homes above and beyond their means--"

I did not make that assumption, Doug implied it in his example; remember the 2.2% burden for the guy making $75K compared to .8% rate for the $200K Fat Cat. My point was (1) you are all using the exact same services so fair is fair you should all pay the same amount for them and (2)if you can't afford it, you shouldn't own it. I think anyone with the least bit of common sense would agree with that. I would like to own a Ferrari but can't afford it so I drive a Honda. I don't ask others to subsidize my ability to buy it any way.

There are options. We make them every day. Eg...Do I buy that $4 Starbucks coffee or I just make it at home for $.50 a cup? Do I grab lunch at an expensive place or go to McDonald's?

As far as Essex goes, again you don't get it. The town has raised taxes by raising assessed values without reducing tax rates proportionately. It was INTENTIONAL! They WANTED to raise tax revenue. They conveniently hid behind the rise in property values as an illegimate reason to mask their failures managing their town's budget. High property values DO NOT raise the cost of government services. Irresponsible spending and lack of cost control does that. Taxes are how this is paid for.

The Progs motivation isn't to make it equitable, it is to take it from people they think don't deserve it; all well masked under a theme of social justice.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:01 PM, November 15, 2007

"I bet the income tax will be a wash for many people. Those with greater incomes already get taxed more because they have more valuable properties."

And this proposal raises it for them even more. Your logic is they pay a lot now by their choice so it's okay for the government to raise it even more.

Maybe you don't mind but for me I work long and hard for my money. I really don't like being told how I will spend it when I know I am paying a premium to everyone else for the same services.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, November 15, 2007

"It's those evil seniors again. You presumably will be getting raises though. They will not."

If you read my whole post, I suggested if it was about the seniors, deal with that and give them an exemption.

Just share the burden equally among all the rest. You included since I trust you too will get a raise.

BTW...thanks for attacking things that weren't said.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:11 PM, November 15, 2007

Oh, I see. Aa person who has put his life savings into a home and hopes to retire there hshouldn't own it because his tax assessment has gone up 100% What happened to the American Dream for him? Or is that only for the deserving, like you, also?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:32 PM, November 15, 2007

My point has been about seniors all along and I'm not the one concerned about my fair share.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:51 PM, November 15, 2007

"The United States has lived with the graduated income tax for almost 100 years"

Not across the board as you would like to suggest Doug with Property taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes as examples.
-----
"If the proposed tax was applied to renters, there's no way to ensure that landlords wouldn't just charge them for his/her share anyway (unless we had rent control). "

Nice try. Doug, rents are driven by market factors of which costs are only a portion. There is no necessary or consistent tie between ownership costs incurred and rents charged anywhere. Your point, while seemingly noble, is not valid. In high demand areas rental fees are at a premium. In low demand areas a discount. Nothing to do with costs.
------
"Please explain how they are a "burden" on you."

If I pay a 'progressive' premium for the a service and you pay an effectvely discounted rate for the same service, I pay a cost to support you...ie a burden; a common economic term nothing derogatory as you might be implying. There are clear winners and losers in this proposed scheme.
-------------

"And I guess it never occurred to you that the home he bought for $175,000 (which is what he could afford at the time) is now worth $250,000 and the taxes have gone up a lot faster then his income. And that's exactly the point."

Gee Doug , no it didn't. I have lived in a cave. Similarly, I suspect it never occur to you the only reason that happens is because governments don't reduce the millage rate sufficiently to mitigate the rapid rise in values. If they controlled their costs responsibiliy they wouldn't need rediculous tax increases. C'mon you are smarter than that.
---------------
"Lifestyle"? You mean buying a home?"

Actualy, yes. A house is just like any other thing you buy in your personal life. It is not an entitlement. You pick what you can afford. If you can't afford a house, there are apartments. If you don't like apartments, there are mobile homes. I would like one of those big estates in Shelburne but can't afford it so I live in something I can, as meager as it is, and I don't expect others to subsidize my living costs.
---------------
"using words like "communism"".

I didn't use those words although it is good for effect (yours not mine)

-------------------
"I guess that means you would vote to repeal the federal tax benefits for those who buy Hummers..."

I didn;t know there was a tax reg for Hummers. The General Motors lobby was apparently pretty effective. Exactly which tax reg is it?
------------------

"Those of you who refer to hard working families as "mediocre" and a "burden" should be ashamed of yourselves"

Only you refered to the hard working families as mediocre and a burden. I think the quotes you are trying to revise are below. One was about the downside of progressive income tax structures and the other about the Progressive party and their philosphy. You shouldn't put words in people's mouths. Remember its all about independence..fair and balanced.
Quote 1: "This merely a socialistic redistribution of income incentivizing the productive to be less so and encouraging the less productive to remain so."

Quote 2: " I think I am learning something about the Progressives. They really do not stand for achieving a better society. They are really all about sustaining mediocrity"

------------------------
"Ae you really that uninformed? It's a state law for goodness sake. "

Apparently....but is there also a law preventing an offsetting decrease in the millage rate to mitigate ridiculous tax increases? Are you really that naive?
----------------

Maybe it's as you said earlier. It's all about perspective.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:17 PM, November 15, 2007

"You make the incorrect assumption that people purchased homes above and beyond their means--"

It doesn't assume the purchase was above their means. It assumes the current ownership costs (specfically taxes) are above their means and that my friend now becomes a personal decision they need to make, not something the government needs to legislate.

The options could be: 1. cut other expenses so you can afford your taxes, 2. sell and acquire something more suitable for your current income or 3. earn additional income so you can afford it.

It's no different than when grocery costs or fuel costs go up faster than your paycheck. You cut back somewhere else to make ends meet. The best I can tell is that this has been the model for successful personal finance for hundreds of years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:36 PM, November 15, 2007

"So Warren Buffett and Bill Gates should pay the same in taxes as you and me?"

For the service traditionally provided for under proerty tax schemes, yes. It is inconceivable why police, fire or trash services as examples would be 2, 3, or 4 times more costly to them than it is for the neighbor across town. They get exactly the same service. They should pay at the same rate as the next guy. Why do you want think it is right for you to take their money that they have earned through their own means?

It's not like either of these guys aren't humanitarians.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:47 PM, November 15, 2007

I would bet it would considerably more firefighters and equipment to handle a fire at one of their homes than most people's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:50 PM, November 15, 2007

Well, let's see. In this housing market everything is going to sell immediately, of course. So problem solved, right?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:05 PM, November 15, 2007

Of course, he could get another job.
Yeah right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:08 PM, November 15, 2007

"The property tax system is not based on ability to pay (like the income tax)."

And the income tax system does not reflect ability to pay, either, Douggie boy.

Burlington is full of rich trustafarians who don't earn an "income" the way I do -- busting my ass at work and getting a paycheck. No, they get their wealth the old-fashioned way: inheritance. A shift to income taxation would not get one more dime from these Proggie trustafarians who think it's okay to redistribute MY money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 PM, November 15, 2007

The arguments about paying the same rate for the same services sound reasonable but that's not the way most of American governments are financed. By far the largest source of revenue for the state and federal governments is the income tax - yes, the graduated income tax. While some extreme Right wingers might like to change that to a flat tax, it's not going to happen.

And BTW - There's no point is singling out local services. You could make the same argument for how we pay for the military. Rich people pay more but we're all protected to the same extent. Gosh, how do you sleep at night?

It has been a cornerstone of U.S. fiscal policy for decades that the income tax is based on ability to pay. This proposal is simply intended to extend that fairness to municipal taxation.

BTW - The top marginal tax rate for the U.S. was 70% in 1980. It's now 35%. So keep that in mind as you imagine that the wealthy are laboring under such a huge burden.

Look, it's clear that many of you don't support this proposal. That's your business and if you live in Burlington, you'll get a chance to vote. But the math is clear, many many more people will benefit from this change then the number who will be required to pay more. So I'm perfectly happy to let the democratic process work and see how it turns out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:30 PM, November 15, 2007

"And the income tax system does not reflect ability to pay, either, Douggie boy. Burlington is full of rich trustafarians who don't earn an "income" the way I do -- busting my ass at work and getting a paycheck. No, they get their wealth the old-fashioned way: inheritance. A shift to income taxation would not get one more dime from these Proggie trustafarians who think it's okay to redistribute MY money."

First, only 3% of all tax filers in Burlington earned more than $150,000 in 2005. Does that seem like we're "full of rich trustafarians"? Not.

And BTW - Please provide the source for your statement that they are "Proggie trustafarians". To my knowledge, there is no data on this. I'd love to see it.

Second, for the purpose of this proposal, it is irrelevant how they get their money. They would be taxed based on Adjusted Gross Income, just like you. While it's true that this would not tax wealth (assets), it would certainly tax their income. So what exactly are you talking about?

Finally, using "Douggie boy" and "Proggie" may seem cute to you, but to me it's just childish.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:45 PM, November 15, 2007

"I would bet it would considerably more firefighters and equipment to handle a fire at one of their homes than most people's."

That is why they pay more in total tax dollars (because their property is assessed higher than most people's) but they pay it at the SAME millage rate as everyone else. That's fair.

But at the end of the day your logic is invalid for 2 reasons:

1. I don't believe their houses have ever burned, so it actually has cost less to support them.

2. It probably costs a lot less in Police protection, social services, educational costs, et.al.,to support them than it does to support others in less affluent neighborhoods because they have worked hard to be successful and therefore need less service.

In which case would you suggest they pay less?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:09 AM, November 16, 2007

"Of course, he could get another job.
Yeah right."

It happens every day for people with drive. but..maybe not for victims.

Be responsible for your choices in life.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:12 AM, November 16, 2007

"The property tax system is not based on ability to pay (like the income tax)."

And that is exactly the point. If you can't afford something, when there are a multitude of options (as with the choice of housing)...don't buy it. I trust when most of you choose to buy a car, you don't go straight to the BMW store because you know you can't afford it.

You are buying government-provided services (in theory because they can provide it more efficiently..a conversation for another thread), the same services as the next guy. You should be charged the same rate. Fair is fair unless you are a socialist.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 AM, November 16, 2007

"BTW - The top marginal tax rate for the U.S. was 70% in 1980. It's now 35%."

Exactly. Look at how much more robust the economy is today than it was after the Carter years....compliments of trickle down economics. Thank you Ronald Reagan.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:20 AM, November 16, 2007

"By far the largest source of revenue for the state and federal governments is the income tax..."

Doug, this is not the standard for municipal governments and never has been.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 AM, November 16, 2007

"By far the largest source of revenue for the state and federal governments is the income tax..."

Doug, this is not the standard for municipal governments and never has been.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:22 AM, November 16, 2007

"But the math is clear, many many more people will benefit from this change then the number who will be required to pay more."

On more Socialist POV... and when the high earners leave, who pays? Oh yeah, the not so high earners.

It never ceases to amaze me how focused and passionate you are on taking and redistributing other people's income. I understand it(since your income comes from the political in's and wannabes)but remain amazed none the less.

It would actually be a better/more noble thing for the entire population if all the energy spent on trying to figure out how to take money from those you are jealous of were redirected to actually fixing a real problem like making government more productive, more afforable and more focused on realizing a bright and secure future for its residents.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:34 AM, November 16, 2007

"Taking money from those you are jealous of" assumes a set of values people who want to help less fortunate people often do not share.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:18 AM, November 16, 2007

"Exactly. Look at how much more robust the economy is today than it was after the Carter years....compliments of trickle down economics. Thank you Ronald Reagan."

I am continually amazed at how quick you are to make certain statements but how little you actually know about the subject.

How do you define "robust" We have the greatest income inequality since the Great Depression. We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs that are being replaced (in large part) with lower paying jobs. We have the worst post-recession jobs performance ever. We have a trade deficit big enough to choke a horse.

From the `50s through the mid-70s, ALL income classes gained at about the same rate (hence, a rising tide and all that). Since then, most of the new wealth created has gone to the top 5%. It is destroying hope for the middle class.

And for those who favor a "fair" tax system, are you aware that the proposed new tax in Burlington is a FLAT tax. Yes, the one you all claim to love. Same percentage of income paid by everyone.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:35 AM, November 16, 2007

It should also be noted that one of the benefits of a propoerty tax is a certain amount of stability in revenues. Income tax revenues are prone to much more significant fluctuations. And, if there is a recession with incomes being reduced, will it be productive to then increase the tax rate at that partiuclar time to cover governmental expenditures?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:27 PM, November 16, 2007

"Doug Hoffer said... "

Yawn.....

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, November 16, 2007

I wonder why everyone seems to be missing (or not caring about) the point. Everyone is upset over the increase in their property taxes....escalating real estate prices, astronomical increases, it outpaces my earnings, aren;t the seniors suffering, blah, blah, blah.

Everyone wants to debate property tax -v- income tax, progressive -v- flat tax rates, on and on and on.

No one seems to ask the real question why do the cities need this increased revenue and what are they doing with it.

I am just a simple guy and at the risk of being told how uninformed I am by Doug H it clearly makes no sense. If taxes used to cover the tab and now they are going up 30+% and inflation is well below that, (a) where is all the money going (b) why can't we live within our what used to be our means (c) when will we ever zero-base our municipal budgets and jettison the fat.

Few if any local services are directly linked to property values. If tax rates have gone up as we all think they have, where has this windfall revenue gone, other than to consultants doing seemingly endless tax redistribution studies.

Everyone is all over Douglas to cut the fat on another thread but no one seems to care at a local level. Maybe because its a Prog issue in Burlington and a Republican issue in Montpelier. Any way apparently we are content ot just accept it and try to get someone else to foot the bill.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:50 PM, November 16, 2007

I can't say why it makes no sense to you because it's obvious. Costs for towns and cities go up for the same reason costs go up for you and for businesses: things cost more!

I don't know about you but my health insurance has gone up 81% since 2000. The cost of gasoline has gone up over 100% since 2000. Do you think police cruisers and snow plows cost what they did ten years ago? And so on.

As for your suggestion that we "jettison the fat", I would be happy to pass along any suggestions. FYI: Almost half of all general fund expenses are for Police & Fire. Should we cut there? How about Parks & Rec? Street plowing and other maintenance?

Oh BTW - Are you aware that in Burlington we have $1.6 billion in exempt property (UVM, FAHC, state offices, relgious properties, etc.). Some make "payments in lieu of taxes" but they're tiny compared to what the real property tax payment would be. Other than Montpelier, there is no town in VT where taxpayers have to provide services for so much untaxed property.

Of course the City and the State should be as efficient as possible. But it's a lot easier to say "cut the fat" then it is to actually figure out where and how. We're not talking about whether you should cut back on eating out or having HBO on your cable. The City provides basic services. Exactly which ones do you suggest we cut?

I'm not saying there is nothing to be done, only that it's a hell of lot more complicated then it might seem.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:34 PM, November 16, 2007

does Champlain College pay taxes on all the prime property it has acquired on the hill? Just curious.
I have never seen them mentioned either way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:47 PM, November 16, 2007

I think Champlain has a mix of properties. Some are fully exempt and others only partially exempt.

Interestingly, I've been told that they are required to make a payment in lieu of taxes because of their state charter. However, if my information is correct, the values of the parcels for those purposes were frozen at the time of purchase.

I don't know how all this relates to the most recent purchases.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:09 PM, November 16, 2007

Doug Hoffer said . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:31 AM, November 17, 2007

Doug Hoffer said . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:31 AM, November 17, 2007

Doug Hoffer said . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:32 AM, November 17, 2007

Way to go. Once again, you have raised the level of the discourse.

It must be really upsetting to be reminded that this is a public space open to all - even those who say things that annoy you. And worse yet, there are some of us who are not intimidated by the endless bullying.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:23 AM, November 17, 2007

. . . and likewise the rest of us are not intimidated by your endless blog-hogging and condescending, know-it-all one-upmanship.

This is how you began your last posting:

"I can't say why it makes no sense to you because it's obvious."

That's the remark of a condescending know-it-all jerk.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:58 AM, November 17, 2007

1. You would be a lot more convincing if you also criticized bloggers who refer to others as Joseph Goebbels (or other such offensive characterizations).

2. I'm curious about the "blog-hogging" comment. As the only person here using an identifiable name, it's easy to count my entries. But of course it's impossible to know how many times others (like you) have posted.

3. If sharing information makes me a "know-it-all", I guess I'm guilty. But while this certainly isn't a formal debate, the idea is to make an argument and support it with facts. Others do the same. The alternative (all too frequent) is for people to call each other names and make assertions that are not supported by the evidence.

I choose the former and will just have to live with your disapproval.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:30 AM, November 17, 2007

"My point has been about seniors all along and I'm not the one concerned about my fair share."

I am a senior. May I send my next tax bill to you?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:45 AM, November 17, 2007

Doug said..."First, only 3% of all tax filers in Burlington earned more than $150,000 in 2005."

In some strange way it seems a little like profiling. Let's identify a small group, gang up on them and take their money since there is more of us than there is of them and it's not fair that they earned so much more than us anyway.

Question: Did you steal people's lunch money when you where in grade school too or is this a new found hobby?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:49 AM, November 17, 2007

"I can't say why it makes no sense to you because it's obvious. Costs for towns and cities go up for the same reason costs go up for you and for businesses: things cost more!"

Doug, just so you know, I have run businesses over the last 20 years ranging in size up to several hundred million dollars. I understand fully how costs go up. You surprisingly are not the only one with a college education. Labor, benefits and utility costs have not gone up nearly at the rate property taxes have. Period. I live it every day in the real world not in some sterile theoretical world dreaming up policy statements. There is no correlation between the increase in property values(and the related tax increase) and the real cost of operating any cost efficient organization. In this argument you seem amazing short of facts to back your assertion. One place all organizations begin cutting fat by the way is in eliminating outside service (like independent consultants).

And to answer your question directly, yes we should look at the operating costs of Police, fire and snowplowing. To give them a free pass sounds noble because they are intuitively important but to not question, probe and challenge everything they spend on is irresponsible and exactly how fat accumulates.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:06 AM, November 17, 2007

"Oh BTW - Are you aware that in Burlington we have $1.6 billion in exempt property (UVM, FAHC, state offices, relgious properties, etc.)."

Oh gee Doug, no... Surprisingly yes I am and surprisingly it seems obvious to me you should be working from a policy perspective to eliminate this inequity for the good of the greater population.

Virtually everyone that posts on these boards hates the thought of subsidizing businesses to incent private sector investment in the state. All these organizations have substantial income streams and much more so than the top 3% of individual earners you so desperately want to tax. Let's have them carry their fair share to reduce the burden on the people.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:12 AM, November 17, 2007

South Burlington residents have always paid more in property taxes to subsidize the breaks given to businesses to locate in the community. And now Essex residents are trying to get the Champlain Valley Exposition to pay--so the comment on all untaxed property in Burlington is a legitimate one.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:53 AM, November 17, 2007

More Vermont state salaries:
Governor's Commission on Women:
Janet Bullard - $54,974.
Judith Irving _ 30.38/hr
Wendy Love - 75,337
Lilly Talbert - 31,761
Human Rights Commission:
Robert Appel - $86,049
Paul Erlbaum - 35,521
Jerri Lamson - 48,963
Ellen Maxon - 40,123
Tracy Tsugawa - 47,361

Question: can anyone tell me what these people do?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:59 AM, November 17, 2007

"the comment on all untaxed property in Burlington is a legitimate one"

Bingo! By doing so it increases the cost of the business which they in turn include in the pricing of their goods or services and charge it on to the consumer of those specific goods/services. He who uses the goods/services pays for the goods/services he uses. It isn't arbitrarily allocated to a group at the whim of some political group. It is the ultimate in fair. It's called the free market and it works.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:12 PM, November 17, 2007

Premise: We're talking about municipal non-education property taxes, which is what the proposal addresses.

You said "Labor, benefits and utility costs have not gone up nearly at the rate property taxes have. Period."

We can't use the actual tax rate because it was adjusted downward after the latest reappraisal (when more of the costs were shifted from commercial to residential properties; which happens every time there is a reappraisal). General gov't. tax rate in FY98 = 0.7994 per $100 of assessed value. The FY08 rate is 0.67. And of course we don't pay rates, we pay bills.

A median priced home in Burlington sold for $118,000 in '98. A median priced home in Burlington sold for $250,000 in 2008 (Source: VT Tax Dept., Property Transfer Tax data). That's a 112% increase in value.

For a median priced home, the municipal (non-education) property tax would have been $943 in `98. The tax is now $1,675. That's a 78% increase. But after adjusting for inflation, it's a 28% increase in ten years. Obviously, that's a lot and is a struggle for me and almost everyone I know because wages have not grown at that rate. But how does it compare to City expendeitures?

Burlington's General fund expenses increased 111% from FY96 to FY06 (latest comparable data I could find easily). But after adjusting this for inflation, it's a 60% increase. [Note: I used the Commerce Department's State & Local Price Index instead of the CPI-U because the regular inflation rate is based on a "market basket" of goods & services purchased by families, while governments buy a much different set of goods & services.]

So after adjusting for inflation, City expenditures rose 60% but the property tax bill for the owner of a median priced home "only" went up 28%. Not bad actually.

What about costs to the City?

Health ins. premiums (1998 - 2006): 114% (Source: 2006 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Sponsored Health Insurance Survey conducted by KPMG - now Bearing Point)
Gasoline (`96 - '06): 88% (Source: US DOE / EIA; for New England)
Natural Gas ('96 - '06): 94% (Source: US DOE / EIA; cost per 1,000 cubic feet)
State & Local gov't. wages (`96 - `05): 47% (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey)

So based on this admittedly quick look at some of the data, it appears that your statement may not be accurate. Costs (and expenditures) have gone up faster then property tax bills. This suggests that the City is doing more with less, which is what we all want.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:30 PM, November 17, 2007

Your data also would appear to indicate that skyrocketing personnel costs are part of the equation. Why do we have to constantly increase govt. worker's salaries?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:10 PM, November 17, 2007

"Skyrocketing?
47% before inflation is not skyrocketing. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, it's 14% over 9 years.

And BTW - Wages in the private sector increased at almost the identical rate for the same period. Those increases are passed through in costs; just like for gov't. services.

I really don't understand why some people think cops, firefighters, snow plow drivers, and other gov't. workers should be treated differently than private sector workers. Are they less deserving? Are they less productive? Given the data above about doing more with less, it would appear that at least part of the reason is greater productivity. Shouldn't that translate into more pay?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:12 PM, November 17, 2007

Doug

With all due respect it appears you have conveniently mixed and matched growth rates with and without inflation included.

City expenditures(with inflation) have increased 111% per you.

As you itemized them, individual items (also with inflation)have increased:
Health ins. premiums (1998 - 2006): 114%
Gasoline (`96 - '06): 88%
Natural Gas ('96 - '06): 94%
State & Local gov't. wages (`96 - `05): 47%

Only health insurance has actually increased faster than the total city expenditure growth rate of 111%. The rest are well below. Clearly there is real growth included.

A couple other thoughts.

1. Your sources reflect averages in many cases they may not apply specifically to VT.

2. Most for-profit businesses have to deal with inflationary increases by taking mitigating actions eg. with rising health care, they have shopped for less costly programs, encouraged wellness programs, increased employee contributions.

3. Most fundamentally you have hit the exact issue. Government costs have grown indifferently at a rate much higher than the revenue base that supports it. Think about it. If your pay increased 28% and you increased your expenses 60% over the same period, would you be bragging to your neighbors about how well you are doing financially? You would probably be on the edge of bankruptcy or looking hard for a 2nd job.

4. You do admit the increase has outpaced even your pay increases and is difficult to deal with. The problem if you don't see, and it is so obvious, is that no real alternative is offered to turn the tide of this fiscal irresponsibility. When expenses outpace the ability to grow revenue in the private sector, companies have to cutback to match the expenses with the revenues to avoid bankruptcy. In the public sector (at least here) we seek ways to either increase taxes on a base that is already struggling to keep up with the historic increases or to find novel ways and rationals to shift the taxes to different classes of taxpayers. You never address the fundamental issue...how do you run a government efficiently at a size appropriate for what its citizens can afford. Governments, just like you, me and private sector businesses, have to learn to live in their means. Today they don't. The interesting part of that is when they choose to overspend, over-legislate or over-commit, they don't suffer or feel the pain. It is the citizens that pay the bill that do. Now that is what's really not fair.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:53 PM, November 17, 2007

Thanks for your thoughts. With respect, however, I think it is you who has mixed & matched.

First, you first stated that "Labor, benefits and utility costs have not gone up nearly at the rate property taxes have." If I understand you, that's the rate of growth for inputs (not overall expenditures) vs. taxes.

The data shows that property taxes went up 78% (before inflation), while health insurance, gasoline & natural gas ALL exceeded that rate (again, before inflation). Only wages lagged the increase in taxes.

Now to expenditures, which is a separate but related issue. After adjusting for inflation, expenditures went up 60% but taxes only went up 28%. If City expenses grew 60% but it only cost you 28% more to pay for them, why is that not a win? If you had an adjustable rate mortgage that jumped from $1,000 to $1,600 but you only had to pay $1,280, wouldn't you be pleased?

As for your other points:

1. Sources: I'm not aware of any local sources with reliable data (short of digging into the guts of the City's budget & financial statements). If you know of any, please let me know.

2. Mitigation: The City has done exactly that by switching health plans, negotiating higher employee contributions, making its facilities more energy efficient, and so on. The City Treasurer is a smart guy who pays taxes just like you and me and wants to save where he can. And I hardly think the Mayor and city council enjoy spending any more than necessary.

3. I'm not clear about the purported "fiscal irresponsibility". If the cost of inputs goes up as much as indicated above, it's no surprise that expenditures went up too. And the comparison to the private sector is not apples to apples. Companies don't provide basic services like public safety and infrastructure. They don't have to buy your company's product, but they insist on having the roads plowed. Municipalities can cut back on services, but most residents and voters don't like it and fight like hell when it's recommended. Indeed, they usually ask for more services, not less. Would you accept less road maintenance or snow plowing?

4. "Governments, just like you, me and private sector businesses, have to learn to live [with]in their means. Today they don't." That assumes the distribution of the "burden" is fair and that "our" means are maxed out.

That brings up back to the original point. The current property tax system takes a much bigger chunk as a % of income from the middle class then it does from the wealthy. If that is changed to a flat tax on income instead of property (which has little to do with ability to pay), we don't collect any more money, but many more people will be able to afford the cost.

Finally, unless and until we get a grip on out of control health care and energy costs, all municipalities and states will struggle. I wish those who decry public expenditures would demand real solutions to these problems as they point the finger at public administrators. You may well agree, but I get the feeling others don't always see the connection.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:19 PM, November 17, 2007

Doug, here's a novel idea: cut the number of government employees, put a cap on public employee wages, and cut government services.

If that drives some workers out of the public sector -- good.

Your belief that every government service currently being performed is one that should be performed just begs the question.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:07 PM, November 17, 2007

1. As expected, some do NOT care about actually controlling costs like health care and energy. They would rather just cut services.
2. Therefore, please tell us which municipal services we should cut and which employees are not needed.

This is your chance. Lay out your program. The residents of Burlington are waiting.

Or can you only complain and insist on simplistic solutions without real substance?

BTW - Are you a resident of Burlington?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:45 PM, November 17, 2007

This is what "Defensive Doug" Hoffer posted on this very blog on the "Lofin' over to N.H." thread just a few days ago:

"Actually, you don't know a damn thing about me. For example, while serving as a commissioner at the Burlington Electric Dept., we hired a new general manager with specific instructions to reduce staff. It was our view that the Dept. had gotten fat over time. It was not my desire to hurt workers but my primary obligation was to rate payers (the citizens & businesses of Burlington)."

So, Doug admitted that there was "fat" in the BED, which is part of city government.

If there was fat in the BED, it's a given that there's fat elsewhere also. And that would be even more true in state government, which is a much larger organization.

If Doug doesn't agree there's fat in municipal government, then he was a hypocrite in cutting jobs at the BED.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:44 PM, November 17, 2007

Blah, blah, blah

BED is a regulated utility (a "revenue" department); not part of general city government. Do you even know the difference?

I never said there wasn't fat in city gov't., although that doesn't stop you from putting words in my mouth.

I repeat: What is YOUR proposal?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:48 PM, November 17, 2007

Awww, Doug's getting a little testy because he got caught in a contradiction.

He cut workers from the government payroll.

How unkind. How damn unsocialist.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:28 PM, November 17, 2007

"I never said there wasn't fat in city gov't."

Then why do you always aregue against cutting anyone from the payroll?

My proposal? Since you seem to know everything, my proposal is for you to find the fat and cut it. Just like you did at BED.

By the way, BED seems to have survived the personnel cuts you made. Amazing.

Show me the personnel budget and I'll find cuts. Then I'll hire you to be the hatchet man like at BED.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:50 PM, November 17, 2007

"Then why do you always aregue against cutting anyone from the payroll?"

I don't. You guys just made that up and it becomes real in your minds. All I've said is that cutting jobs and services should not be a knee jerk response. This is especially so when there are so many other ways to cut costs, such as health care (which is killing businesses, families and governments). But that would require courage from our governor.

"By the way, BED seems to have survived the personnel cuts you made. Amazing."

No. Not awazing at all. As I said, we knew there was fat. But you still don't seem to get the key difference. While technically a city department, BED's expenses were not (and are not) paid with property taxes. I think it's pretty clear that there was insufficient oversight (by either the city council or the Public Service Board) and all VT utilities were fat (note the "downsizing at GMP & CVPS as well). So the commission took responsibility and charged the new general manager with the task.

But cutting fat from a regulated utility after decades of council and regulatory neglect is entirely different than cutting general city services - which have been under budget pressures for years. I'm just not so sure how much fat there is in city government or where it might be. Apparently, neither are you.

As for your "proposal", it is not what readers were expecting. Let Doug do it is kind of a lame response don't you think? Especially when you were SO certain there was fat. But now you need to see the personnel budget. While I applaud your decision to think about it first, it kind of undercuts your earlier statements.

BTW - Looking at budget data alone is not enough to make the decision. Do you know what the job duties are for each employee? Do you know how programs and services are delivered? Do you know what the impact on services will be from cutting one job; or two; or ten? Do you know who is most experienced or productive or will you just cut by job title?

So tell us please, what services are unnecessary and what jobs are expendable?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:47 PM, November 17, 2007

Which ones were expendable at BED?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:03 AM, November 18, 2007

More and more government employees = more union dues stolen from the employees' paychecks and given to the dimocrat/progs = more campaign funds to keep these nitwits in office longer to screw up what's left of the private sector in Vermont. Simple.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:02 AM, November 18, 2007

Which ones were expendable at BED?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:31 AM, November 18, 2007

Which ones were expendable at BED?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:42 PM, November 18, 2007

all of them

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, November 18, 2007

"Which ones were expendable at BED?"
"all of them"

The people who work at BED do an excellent job. I wager you don't even know them or have any idea what most of them do.

Your antagonism toward public employees is both irrational and disturbing. Do you also think the employees at GMP are expendable? Could you use your computers to post these outrageous comments without the electricity they provide?

These types of comments make me sick. And yes, I will sign my name to this while you hide behind the anonymity of this blog saying whatever twisted crap comes into your head. You should be ashamed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:53 PM, November 18, 2007

To Doug, the great defender of the government and all its employees, we're asking you: which employees did you let go at the Burlington Electric Department, and why??? You refuse to answer.

Because they weren't NEEDED, that's why.

YOU'RE the one who fired them, Doug.

YOU.

"You should be ashamed."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:46 PM, November 18, 2007

I defend working people. You denigrate them. Are you proud of yourself?

As usual, you have avoided the core issue. The prior comment suggested that ALL BED employees are expendable. There is simply no way to defend that.

Some people were either fired or offered early retirement because the organization was fat. That is entirely different from suggesting that all gov't. employees are useless.

The commission did EXACTLY what you claim to support. We streamlined the organization. Yet you have the f___ing nerve to piss on me and the employees. You are a pig.

And of course the great advocates of cutting services and jobs cannot answer the simple question: what City services would you cut and which jobs? We are still waiting and will not be distracted.

Your feeble attempt to shift the burden to me is a typical response when you have nothing to say. I did my part. What have you done other than rant on this pathetic little blog?

Do you even live in Burlington? Do you enjoy the benefits of BED? Do you even work for a living? Have you ever served on a commission? Been elected to public office?

I suspect not. You are a sad blowhard who hides behind the anonymity of this blog.

Other than complaining, do you DO anything? And are you so sure your own job is needed? And if not, I hope you get more sympathy than you offer to other hard working Vermonters.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:37 PM, November 18, 2007

I defend working people.

When I'm not firing them.

-Doug

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:01 AM, November 19, 2007

Wow, Doug. Your tirade went totally off the deep end and is not worthy of you.

Using the F bomb? Calling someone a pig? Because of your (mis)interpretation of their attitude toward government and government employees?

Holy crap. Get a grip. Get some medication, pal.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:37 PM, November 19, 2007

You're right. I apologize for the language but not the sentiment.

I don't think I misinterpreted their attitude toward gov't. employees. It has been very clear.

All workers deserve respect, regardless of who signs the paycheck.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:12 AM, November 20, 2007

"I don't think I misinterpreted their attitude toward gov't. employees. It has been very clear."

I don't think anyone has had an issue with being a government employee, they are fine and honorable jobs. No one has singled out fire fighters, policemen or snow plow drivers as the maligned class but you Doug.

I think the issue has been with the amount of govenment jobs and the standards and expectations they are managed to. The view you offer is government is needed to make decisions for individuals because they are inherently wiser and fairer. Everyone else thinks smaller is better when it comes to government's telling us what to do and how to spend our money.

It's clear that the Progs perspective is to hold the status quo and redistribute any gains an individual may actually earn in the marketplace. You prove that with every post. Last I knew, we all have EQUAL rights and abilities to be successful if we so choose to take personal responsibility to earn it. If we earn it, we should be able to keep it and enjoy it.

And Doug as far as the apology for the potty mouth, it get's tougher to believe you mean it the more you do it. This isn't even remotely the first time you have attacked with expletives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:21 AM, November 20, 2007

"All workers deserve respect, regardless of who signs the paycheck."

Disagree. People who show up and work hard deserve respect. Not all "workers" work hard. Some just show up and collect a paycheck. Others don't even show up. Your statement is too broad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, November 20, 2007

Here, Here!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 PM, November 23, 2007

If anyone it still reading this,here's an interesting article from today's Washington Times. Apparently it's the Dems that are the fat cats. Not those evil repubs...
-------------
Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats."

Let the de-bunking begin....again!

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:22 AM, November 24, 2007

"The view you offer is government is needed to make decisions for individuals because they are inherently wiser and fairer."

I said no such thing. Please find a post of mine that says anything that is even remotely like that.

BTW - "Government" hasn't made those choices. The legislature, which is elected by Vermonters, has made those decisions. Who the heck is the "government" anyway?

And of course, many legislatures here and elsewhere have made such decisions - not because they are "wiser and fairer" but because people left to their own devices often do things that unintentionally hurt other people.

This began a long time ago when the US Supreme Court determined that local zoning was constitutional. In that case, they recognized that the rights of property owners are not absolute. They must be regulated to protect neighbors. Likewise, the same logic applies to many other aspects of everyday life such as demonstrating that you're fit to drive a car, that your car is safe, that you cannot dump dangerous chemicals in the water, that children cannot drink or buy cigarettes, that you cannot sell food products that contain known carcinogens, that we need codes to regulate the safety of homes and other buildings, that merchants cannot put out false advertising, and on and on.

Virtually all of these were adopted only after people were injured by others; not because a bunch of wackos were looking for opportunities to limit your freedom or tell you what to do.

"Everyone else thinks smaller is better when it comes to government's telling us what to do and how to spend our money."

These are two entirely different issues. Many on this blog have made generalizations about the size of the gov't. payroll but I fail to see the connection between the number of Corrections officers, AOT employees, or other routine gov't. jobs and "telling us what to do and how to spend our money".

"It's clear that the Progs perspective is to hold the status quo and redistribute any gains an individual may actually earn in the marketplace. You prove that with every post."

Again, I've said no such thing. Seriously: "any gains"?! Who are you kidding? Are you really suggesting that if you earn (or at least make) $1 million, you don't get to keep any of it? Hell, the top marginal rate in VT doesn't even kick in until you've declared the first $336,000. And even then you still get to keep 91% of everything above that. I don't think that qualifies as redistributing "any gains".

Moreover, we have had a graduated income tax in this country for almost a century. If you choose to call that "redistribution", feel free. It is quite simply a recognition that some taxes should be based on ability to pay.

And are you aware that the IRS' top marginal rate has dropped from 70% to 35% in the last 30 years? Seems like things have been going your way for some time.

Furthermore, because the FICA payroll taxes are both flat and capped, and because of our reliance on regressive taxes like the property and sales taxes, the percent of income paid in taxes by the wealthy is actually lower than it is for low- and moderate-income folks.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:47 PM, November 25, 2007

Ah, Doug is back with a vengeance after a hiatus, responding to old postings. Hey, Doug, where'd ya go on vacation? While you were away, your small-minded, ankle-biting, wanna-be, flak jwcoop subbed for you. Or is jwcoop really just doug (in a more vitriolic incarnation)?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:53 PM, November 25, 2007

Oh-Oh! You just hurt Dougie's feelings! Now you've done it! Expect a slew of trash any minute from his crazy alter-ego poop.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:11 PM, November 25, 2007

"Expect a slew of trash any minute from his crazy alter-ego poop."

Bubba, I'm the one who posted the above. JWNasty spews a lot of trash, but so do you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:19 PM, November 25, 2007

Anthony Pollina for Governor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:10 PM, November 26, 2007

He's already Governor of Speeder & Earl's.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:21 PM, November 26, 2007

Dunne for Governor
Pollina for Lt. Governor

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:17 AM, November 27, 2007

And Robert Sand for Secretary of Space.