Magog: Unguarded
Magog: Unguarded
Swarming Around... cats living with dogs... total chaos.

Thursday, June 12, 2003

The Boston Globe comes in late and predictably against the Bush tax cut. Their argument is so full of holes it appears to be just a knee-jerk reaction to the words "tax cut" rather than a carefully crafted editorial. To wit:
The notion that workers too poor to pay income taxes do not deserve tax credits is a canard that needs refutation. For one thing, workers with incomes between $10,500 and $27,000 - the cutoff for the child tax credit - do pay sales taxes, property taxes, and payroll taxes (the most regressive federal assessment).

Can't argue that poor people pay sales taxes and property taxes, but those aren't income taxes, nor are they federally mandated. Those are imposed by local and state governments. Why does The Globe expect the federal government to subsidize draconian local taxes by offering credits for amounts not paid to the federal government? Why doesn't The Globe suggest that the local and state governments reduce sales and property taxes instead?

Do not forget that the Bush tax law will reward the richest 1 percent of the country with an average of $100,000 over four years. Instead of denying poor working families, including those serving their country, a few hundred dollars to raise their children, Congress should consider increasing the minimum wage (now $5.15 per hour) so people working 40 hours a week can earn a living.

Sigh. I suppose it would do no good to point out, again, that you can't reduce income tax for people who don't pay income tax and that the people who pay the most taxes realize the greatest gain from a tax cut. That's just math, which is a concept that seems to have eluded The Globe. Oh, and lets throw in a minimum wage increase in for good measure, even though history has shown that this will result in more low-skilled wage earners losing their jobs than realizing an increase in income.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, The Boston Globe just printed a story on 06/07 that asserts:

Boston depends on property taxes for nearly 60 percent of its revenue. Because more than 55 percent of Boston's land is occupied by nonprofits exempt from property taxes, payments in lieu of taxes are critical to the city's ability to provide essential services to its residents. This year those payments are expected to generate $23.1 million, a paltry amount compared with the hundreds of millions Boston would collect if it had the authority to tax nonprofits.

So Harvard gets off scot-free from paying property tax, the city pounds residents to make up the difference, but it's the feds who are supposed ride to the rescue by providing a "tax cut?"

posted by the wolf | 9:42 AM
on this

contact info
Weblog Commenting by