As long as Mr. Anderson addresses my remarks and invites jumping, let us accommodate him.
Excuse me, from where does this convoluted set of definitions emerge?: > I think a person's wealth better describes their financial position than > whatever their current income happens to be. Andy seems to think that a > person's current income is a better basis for taxing than wealth. So those > that "got theirs" can keep it, but those that may have few assets but are > working hard to get more should get hit heavily by taxes. > One of the major benefits of a progressive tax system is to mitigate the > power of the wealthy by taking some of their wealth away. But power from > wealth goes mostly to those that have a lot of property, not those that have > a lot of income Does anyone of us really believe that wealth is not the result of *income*? Is there lying between Mr. Anderson's lines a suggestion that income, its pursuit and its increases, along with "a few assets" is actually *separate* from wealth or wealth-building? Whatever gave you the idea that progressive taxation was designed to "take wealth away?" That is pure misconception or purely misleading, depending on your motive. Power from wealth does NOT merely reside in property owned, especially real estate property. Wealth lies in a combination of very large current incomes - perhaps as a corporate executive (and we need not detail those horror stories here) or a well-to-do doctor, lawyer, dentist, broker, etc., and their portfolios of stocks, bonds and other investments. That's wealth, Mr. Anderson. That's the income that should be taxed. Of course a person's income is the far better basis, the far more progressive form of taxation. The fundamental definition of progressive as it relates to taxation is in income, not simply "assets" as you seem to define them. What, your boat, trailer? RV? What? Those aren't assets if your paying on them. They're liabilities. Why am I very suspicious of this attempt at defining real estate property ownership as the only measure of wealth. Does anyone else see the raging conflict and self-contradiction in his one sentence, "...So those that "got theirs" can keep it, but those that may have few assets but are working hard to get more should get hit heavily by taxes." Now, which will it be? Those who got "theirs" only got their through property ownership? And they're not taxed enough? Or those who got theirs got it through income and they would be let off the hook by increased income taxes? Or vice versa? Or tuned around? What do you mean by "keep it?" Mr. Anderson? Keep what? Their property? Their wealth? Their property wealth? Their wealthy property? Their income? Their outgo? This is is an example of what happens when middle-class and middle-upper middle class folks think that an income tax will fall more heavily on them than it would on the wealthy. That simply doesn't compute. Or, maybe you don't want it to. An income tax, when constructed properly, - even when not constructed properly - falls heaviest on the heaviest incomes. Property taxes essentially ignore income, so the aging woman living next door to Mark Anderson, or that young couple down the block from Mark Anderson want their independence from rentals (which also tag them big time for property taxes through their rent), but don't have the income level Mark Anderson enjoys, are still obligated to pay what will be property taxes much closer to his than they would have to pay if only their incomes were taxed. That's what makes the property tax so regressive, as if Mr. Anderson did not know this: it's levied evenly across income levels against all real estate owners in similarly valued properties. The income tax created levels of affordability for taxation, thus spreading the pain of paying taxes less evenly across incomes and according to the ability to pay them. You want non-real personal property taxed? Tell that to the Legislature. The last thing I'd like to ask is whether Mr. Anderson, then, is happy to see that Governor-elect Pawlenty's pledge never to raise taxes will absolutely � inevitably � increase by double digits Mr. Anderson's property taxes because the major result of a no-tax-increase pledge in the midst of a $4.5 billion deficit, will be so much slashing of the state budget, including local government aids (approximately 30%-60% of city, county and school budgets throughout the state), that local taxing jurisdictions must - no choice, must � raise property taxes to fill the hole. How will he feel when the property tax increases are such that it would dwarf any increase in any income tax he'd pay were the state to bump those instead? Or are we so locked into our fear and hatred of income taxes not even to do the math on this? Does Andy Driscoll believe that taxing a person's current income is better than taxing that same person's property? Especially under these scenarios? Do the math. It is isn't popular opinion. If it were, we'd have gone back to the Minnesota Miracle a long time ago. Andy ------ > From: "Anderson & Turpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Mark Anderson replies: > > I've never understood why people hate property taxes so much more than other > taxes. To me property tax makes more sense than other taxes. I think a > person's wealth better describes their financial position than whatever > their current income happens to be. Andy seems to think that a person's > current income is a better basis for taxing than wealth. So those that "got > theirs" can keep it, but those that may have few assets but are working hard > to get more should get hit heavily by taxes. > > One of the major benefits of a progressive tax system is to mitigate the > power of the wealthy by taking some of their wealth away. But power from > wealth goes mostly to those that have a lot of property, not those that have > a lot of income. So this benefit of progressive taxation is much more > efficient when it hits property instead of income. Unfortunately the > property tax is only on real estate, not total property, but that is > unavoidable because personal property is too easy to hide or move into > non-taxable jurisdictions. In any case, ownership of real estate probably > does result in more government services needed. It also makes more sense to > me that land ownership rights should be weaker than other property rights > because the owner obviously did not create the land, or pay anyone else to > create the land, unlike most other property. > > I realize that the above comments go against the weight of popular opinion. > Go ahead and jump all over me, but please also give my comments some > thought. > > Mark Anderson > Bancroft _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
