Russel Peterson wrote:
<<The most regressive tax in my neighborhood over the past six years has been
property taxes, not to mention sidewalk repair fees, etc. And calling sales
tax regressive assumes a number of things including a flat rate across the
board of all purchases, which we don't have. And why couldn't purchases be
taxed at different rates to build in a little more equity if needed? I also
like the idea that you are taxed on what you consume. >>
Luxury cars immediately come to mind - big gas-guzzling CO2-emitting
vehicles. An additional sales tax on consumer items that are environmentally
unfriendly could both discourage their use and increase state revenues. The
problem, however, with these kinds of punitive taxes is that we really don't
want them to be self-perpetuating; I don't think as a society we want to rely
on pollution or luxury taxes to fund our school system.
Carol Becker wrote:
<<Shifting burden away from property tax, which has
no link to current income, to the income tax, which is exactly based on
income would be much more preferable from a tax equity standpoint than
tinkering with the sales tax, which is a proxy for income. If having a tax
structure based on ability to pay and one that can easily be adjusted to be
progressive, I would think we would be focusing much more on the income tax
than the sales tax.>>
Our elected representatives rarely advocate a fair, proportionate income tax
for some reason... I would guess it is because they rely so heavily on the
wealthy to fund their campaigns. But there is a significant untapped revenue
resource in the progressive income tax. For example, right now an individual
making a salary of $1,000,000 or more a year (and there are plenty of them)
only pays as much Social Security tax as someone making $64,000, which is the
cap, last I heard.
Keith Ford wrote:
<<The comments received so far on this topic reveal why it is so hard to
"reform" taxes in this state. Because we have a fairly integrated tax system
(property, sales and income taxes), any change in one necessarily affects
the other. Soon it's a question of whose ox gets gored.
.. Pretty soon it becomes impossible to satisfy enough constituencies and the
effort falls apart. At least that is the history in the last 30 years.>>
The key is having a degree of consensus about what kind of society we want.
As long as our "constituencies" are pitted against each other in an
atmosphere of competition and scarcity (while the very wealthy continue to
amass more wealth), real economic justice will be difficult to attain. We
need to come to an agreement, as a state, about our priorities and values.
And stop robbing Peter to pay Paul through incremental reforms.
-- Holle Brian
Green Party candidate for state representative, District 62B
(612) 822-6593
www.jimn.org/hollebrian
