Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Oct. 04, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Tax and tax -- then tax some more

Congressional Democrats want more and more of other people's money

Not a week goes by without Democrats proposing some sort of tax increase. On Tuesday, Reps. David Obey, John Murtha and Jim McGovern demanded an income tax hike, ostensibly to pay for the cost of military operations in Iraq. Under their proposal, households in lower tax brackets would have to hand over an additional 2 percent of their income, while taxpayers at the top of the earning spectrum would be hit with a surcharge of between 12 and 15 percent.

The three congressmen want taxpayers to buy into their party's line that the American occupation of Iraq, which is costing about $150 billion per year, is "bankrupting" the treasury, and that it's unfair to pass those costs on to future generations. They'd have the public ignore the more than $2 trillion in other federal spending, and the fact that Democrats are desperate to boost the budgets of social programs and create all-new entitlements for the lower and middle classes.

Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...




    • Make no mistake, if Democrats actually pulled the plug on military operations by cutting off funding, they'd trample one another in a rush to spend the loot elsewhere. Defense spending as a percentage of the overall budget remains much lower than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The proposal from Reps. Obey, Murtha and McGovern is simply a mechanism to give them more spending money for their pet projects, not to pay for a war they don't support.

    Alas, these gentlemen will have to drop their idea into the queue of tax increases proffered by their peers. At the rate Democrats are demanding tax hikes, these guys might not get a hearing until 2009. The short list of bad ideas emanating from the left side of the aisle includes:

    -- Increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

    -- Reinstating the income tax "marriage penalty," which forced married middle-class couples filing jointly to pay more taxes than they would have if they filed separately.

    -- Cutting the per-child tax credit from $1,000 to $500.

    -- Reinstating the death tax, which finally flatlines in 2009 but will come crawling out of its grave in 2011 without further action from Congress. Democrats also want fewer exemptions granted, which would allow them to pick the pockets of more middle-class cadavers.

    -- Increasing the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to between 28 and 35 percent, even though doing so would hinder investment and economic growth, and even though previous increases in the rate have resulted in declining revenues.

    -- Boosting taxes on private equity and hedge fund managers, thereby making U.S. financial institutions less competitive in the global marketplace.

    -- Raising federal cigarette taxes by 156 percent, to $1 per pack.

    -- Sending cigar taxes through the roof, from a 20.7 percent levy on wholesale prices with a 5-cent cap, to a 53 percent rate with a $3 cap.

    -- Piling higher drilling royalties and higher taxes on oil and gas companies by killing tax breaks that are extended to every other U.S. manufacturer.

    -- Increasing the federal gasoline tax by between 5 and 50 cents per gallon.

    -- Creating a tax of $50 per ton of carbon, to be assessed on coal, petroleum products and natural gas.

    -- Raising income taxes on people who live in houses with more than 3,000 square feet by phasing out their mortgage interest deduction. For example, taxpayers who have borrowed money to buy a house with between 3,400 and 3,599 square feet would be able to deduct only 55 percent of their mortgage interest. Homes with 4,200 square feet or more would not be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction.

    -- Eliminating the interest deduction for home equity loans.

    -- Prohibiting donations to cultural institutions and private colleges and universities from being claimed as income tax deductions.

    Some of these proposals lack the support of party leaders. Some have been written into bills and passed by lawmakers. None would make it past President Bush's desk -- he has pledged to veto any tax increase put forward by majority Democrats.

    That's little consolation to taxpayers, because Mr. Bush has less than 16 months left in office. Should the Democratic nominee win the 2008 presidential election and find Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi still at the helm of Congress, there's no telling how many of these proposals might become law.

    For Democrats, it's not enough that federal tax collections are at a record high, or that budget officials are forecasting annual revenue growth of 4 percent in the years ahead. They want more dough, and they believe they can make everyone pay, manipulating their behaviors along the way, without any consequence to the economy.

    Democrats are campaigning on the populist cries that too many Americans are being squeezed by rising energy and housing costs, and that wage increases aren't keeping up. Then they propose confiscating more household income and imposing taxes that will make energy and housing more expensive.

    Democrats reject the tax-and-spend label. But their legislative initiatives give up the game.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 32 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    James Andrews wrote on October 20, 2007 07:41 AM: Tax and spend is better than we have now. With this administrations spend and charge ideals only puts us further and further in debt. And, I might add, some of those proposed taxes don't sound too bad.


    barbara walters wrote on October 05, 2007 07:34 PM: And Harry Reid says George Bush is out of touch with reality. I live in Nevada and I plan to die fighting to get rid of him.


    John F wrote on October 04, 2007 09:38 PM: My feeling about corporate taxes is that corporations do one of two things with their money. They either pay it out in the form of salaries and dividends, in which case it should be taxed, or they plow it back into their businesses, in which case it shouldn't.

    Sales taxes are highly regressive. The people who can least afford to pay them have the largest portions of their incomes taken by them. That's the beautiful thing about a flat tax with no deductions; everyone pays the same proportion. Mr. Malikowski has a good idea about exempting a portion of income, but $63,000 might be a bit much. How about exempting all income below the poverty line?


    barryman wrote on October 04, 2007 07:34 PM: I see the RJ had no problem with more than doubling the price of their annual subscription this year. I'd like to have seen a price cut. Sounds like you're acting like the accused in this editorial.


    Paul Malikowski wrote on October 04, 2007 06:51 PM: When the federal income tax was adopted in 1913, the standard deduction for a single person was $3,000! There was no dependent deduction --didn't need one-- no working stiffs made enough to pay taxes, anyway. The standard deduction is still $3,000. If we adjusted the original $3,000 deduction for inflation it should be $63,000 today.

    Want to sell a "flat-tax"? I'm buying, if the first $63,000 earned is tax-free.


    Jon Hamel wrote on October 04, 2007 03:19 PM: John F.,

    I am all for it, I assume you would treat interest earned on savings in the same way.

    Considering the fact that taxes on Corporations and Sales tax are not progressive in nature, would you also support the elimination of these types of taxes and offset that loss in tax revenue with an increase in the tax rate on the tax that you do propose?


    John F wrote on October 04, 2007 02:54 PM: Jon Hamel,

    That's a very good question. I personally would calculate the original price of the thing being sold (house, stocks, whatever) at its cost in current dollars. In other words, if you bought a painting for $40,000 one year ago, and inflation for the past year was 4%, then the actual cost of the painting would be $41,600. If you then sold the painting for $50,000 you would pay tax on the $8,400. If you waited another year and the inflation rate was still 4%, then the "real price paid" for the painting would now be $43,264. If you still got $50,000 for the painting, you would then pay tax on $6,736.

    There would have to be one standard for inflation, of course. Perhaps someone nonpartisan like the OMB could publish the standard.


    Jon Hamel wrote on October 04, 2007 01:26 PM: John F wrote:

    “Steve, Actually we agree on the flat tax thing, as I said in my post on Tuesday. As long, of course, as there are no loopholes and/or deductions. Plus, all income should be income. Dividends, capital gains, regular income should all be taxed equally.”

    John F,

    With regards to capital gains, how would you consider inflation in that calculation?


    John F wrote on October 04, 2007 01:11 PM: Steve,

    Actually we agree on the flat tax thing, as I said in my post on Tuesday. As long, of course, as there are no loopholes and/or deductions. Plus, all income should be income. Dividends, capital gains, regular income should all be taxed equally.

    This isn't about to happen any time soon, unfortunately. So right now the best thing we can do is to try and ease the burden on the middle class whose spending, after all, is what drives our economy.


    Steve wrote on October 04, 2007 12:43 PM: The people in Congress can be considered in the "wealthy" category and they keep passing loopholes so they can deduct more and pay less taxes. The increases they pass only end up applying to the poor and middle class. Therefore, if they want to make taxes "fair", why not do away with the antiquated tax "system" we currently have and replace it with a "flat tax" where everyone would pay based on what they spend? Why? Because they don't want to make it "fair"...they just want to keep steeling from the poor and middle class and spending it to fatten the pockets of special interest groups and their friends.


    Read All Comments