vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

1.10.2008

State of the State: Trouble for trust-funders (updated at 2:28 p.m.)

Here's the surprise tax proposal the governor's staff had promised: Closing the "tax loophole" that taxes UNearned income at a lower rate than earned income. "This is grossly unfair," Douglas said. "What this means is that a working man or woman in vermont making $50,000 a year pays nearly 50 percent more tax than someone who does not work and simply lives off investment or trust fund capital gains income in the same amount," he said. People over 65, though, won't pay the tax. neither will "middle-income investors" because their first $2,500 of long-term investment income wouldn't be taxed.

Not good news for trust-funders.

-- Candace Page

posted by vt.Buzz | 2:25 PM |

Comments:

Why do I get the feeling that THIS is one tax increase the phony flatlander liberal trustfunders ain't going to like!!!

Don't tax you
Don't tax me
Tax that guy behind the tree.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:54 PM, January 10, 2008

Jim Douglas is raising taxes!!!!

Trustfunders as a significant group are a myth, but its no myth that middleclass, upper middleclass, and retirees have investment income.

If we tax unearned income, then we should tax ALL unearned income. People over 65 should be taxed just like anybody else.

This statement he makes is BS:

"neither will "middle-income investors" (pay the tax) because their first $2,500 of long-term investment income wouldn't be taxed."

Douglas needs get some stats from HR-Block and Fidelity. It is extremely common for middle class folks to have investment income above $2,500. This trends up with age and with overall earnings.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:24 PM, January 10, 2008

If I was a trust-funder and bubba could buy a fact, I'd be mildly concerned.

I'm not. He can't. I'm not.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 4:28 PM, January 10, 2008

Bye-bye trustfarians!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:12 PM, January 10, 2008

This is an excellent move by Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:27 PM, January 10, 2008

Other states tax unearned income in this way, but have a good-sized deductible for your average retirees. This will hit those liberal flatlander trustfunders hard (hopefully) but protect the average Joe that has invested a little for his retirement (hopefully). A good start by Douglas, but still a drop in the bucket. What he really needs to do is to declare war on the teachers union; they only support the liberals anyways, so he has nothing to lose. Wouldn't it be something if they said something like "since we have been the greatest beneficiary of tax increases over the past 25 years, we think it is time to give something back now that the state is suffering"?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:50 PM, January 10, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Bye-bye trustfarians!"

I'm gonna miss ya, little anonymous fella.

May all your clueless-cracker dreams dreams come true in Mississippi.

It's been fun.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:34 PM, January 10, 2008

Taxing a dollar earned from work at the same rate as a dollar earned from investment or trust fund income makes great sense. A simple matter of fairness that also lowers income taxes for workers. Great idea

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:13 PM, January 10, 2008

Income is income. It should all be taxed at the same rate.

Gops just want something for nothing.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:30 PM, January 10, 2008

Uh, no. It wasn't Democrats Symington, Shumlin, Spaulding, or Markowitz that proposed this, but Republican Douglas.

Bye, bye, jw.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:25 PM, January 10, 2008

Douglas is raising taxes on Vermonters and cloaking it. And he wants to raise taxes on the poor and middle-class (again by cloaking it) by privatizing the lottery. Slick Jimmy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:39 AM, January 11, 2008

Let me see if I can follow this example of liberal thinking: we like the lottery because it brings tax money into the state for whatever benefit. However, if we turn it over to private enterprise, they might make too much money for us, and that would be bad. (Beginning to sound like a jw thesis) No wonder Space Cadet Kucinich is popular in Vermont!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:09 AM, January 11, 2008

bubba said...

"Let me see if I can follow this example of liberal thinking:"

Ya mean the kind that didn't give us the Depression, got us out of the Depression, won both WW1 and WW2 in spite of the gops, didn't allow 9/11, didn't invade the wrong Country after 9/11, didn't try to invade another wrong Country after 9/11 ran up huge deficits that Dems had to fix, stole an election or 3, squandered a Surplus, ran up another huge deficit and more debt than all the other Presidents in US History while giving us the Mortgage Crisis, the present Recession and the Economy and all the Consumer Confidence we have today, tiny bubbles?

Why the folk would anyone wanna do that, for Christ sake?

How's the DOW doin' for the first week of '08, bubbles? Is it up or is it down?

How about heating oil and gas prices? How much cheaper are they today than they were the day Clinton left office?

What's the Economic Forecast for this coming year?

Always, always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:48 PM, January 11, 2008

As anyone with even a brain the size of jw should know, the only thing Roosevelt did to get us out of the great depression was WWII. Things were as bad in 1941 as they were in 1932, but the war against countries posing absolutely no threat to us bailed out the U.S. and gave us a booming economy. Unions didn't strike back then, American traitors were jailed, illegal aliens were deported, not merely regarded as future votes by the democrats, and when the Japs wouldn't surrender, by God, we nuked them! How well received do you think FDR and HST (or even JFK) would be by today's crop of lily-livered, pablum-puking, fairy-dusting, ACLU-loving, surrender-monkeys that run the dim party?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:32 AM, January 12, 2008

This is a great move by Douglas.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:26 AM, January 12, 2008

"As anyone with even a brain the size of jw should know, the only thing Roosevelt did to get us out of the great depression was WWII. Things were as bad in 1941 as they were in 1932, but the war against countries posing absolutely no threat to us bailed out the U.S. and gave us a booming economy."

Ah, so Japan and Germany posed no threat to us, eh, bubbles?

Thanks for clearin' that up.

Clearly, I've underestimated the depths of your cluelessness and contempt for the US Constitution and all things American.

"Unions didn't strike back then, American traitors were jailed,
illegal aliens were deported, not merely regarded as future votes by the democrats,"

That explains why the likes of you and your anonymous little buddy are still here and not in gitmo

"and when the Japs wouldn't surrender, by God, we nuked them!"

Well, if they were no threat to us, why'd we attack them, why didn't they surrender and why did we have to nuke them if Japan and Germany were no threat to us?

Make up your mind, bubbles. You're makin' even less sense than ya normally do.

How well received do you think FDR and HST (or even JFK) would be by today's crop of lily-livered, pablum-puking, fairy-dusting, ACLU-loving, surrender-monkeys that run the dim party?"

I think any or all of them would be a big help in cleaning up the mess your beloved fuhrer and his 43rd reich have left us and the World in and they'd feel right at home in the Democratic Wing of Today's Democratic Party.

Ya got any more BP fastballs ya wanna toss up here or have ya got your suicidal impulses out of your system for the moment?

As for the rest of your absurd characterizations, they're the same unfounded, thoroughly-repudiated, ignorant, ill-informed gop-slop nonsense you loons always throw at the wall in the vain hopes that something will stick and it just ain't happenin' for ya, tb.

You, the little fella and the rest of the timothy mcveigh wing of the republican party best book passage on the ratline to Argentina while you still can.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:04 AM, January 12, 2008

Evasive nonsense.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, January 13, 2008

"Current political expediency requires me to twist history. No problem. That's not beneath me."

-jwcoop.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:19 PM, January 13, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Current political expediency requires me to twist history. No problem. That's not beneath me."

Now you're reduced to fabricating quotes, eh?

Evidently, nothing is beneath you little anoymous fella.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:50 PM, January 14, 2008

"Now you're reduced to fabricating quotes, eh?"

Misrepresenting what people write is your specialty.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:53 AM, January 15, 2008

Anonymous said...
"Now you're reduced to fabricating quotes, eh?"

"Misrepresenting what people write is your specialty."

Really? Check again, little fella, this appears to be your work:

Anonymous said...

"Current political expediency requires me to twist history. No problem. That's not beneath me."

"-jwcoop."

Ya know, you can start trying any time now, little fella.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 12:43 PM, January 15, 2008

"Misrepresenting what people write is your specialty."

Ya know, that race vs. "the race" thing?

"Current political expediency requires me to twist history."

Ya know, that claim that JFK was about to end the Vietnam War when he got shot thing?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:00 AM, January 16, 2008

Really? Check again, little fella, this appears to be your work:

Anonymous said...

"Current political expediency requires me to twist history. No problem. That's not beneath me."

"-jwcoop."

Ya know, you can start trying any time now, little fella.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:07 AM, January 16, 2008