It's time for tax revolt! Federal Taxes To be Raised in Blue States

[Kathy in Cambridge]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/18/27_million_in_us_to_see_tax_bill_rise/

<snip>

"Some Republicans have suggested leaving the minimum tax in place because those hardest hit tend to be in states that did not support Bush, including Massachusetts, California, and New York. ‘‘It is a tax of people living in ‘blue’ states,’’ said Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform.

<snip>
He said the tax was originally conceived by liberal Democrats as a way of imposing higher taxes mostly on wealthier Republicans, and he suggested that it be used as a bargaining chip by the White House when Bush tries to enact his tax agenda. The minimum tax should be repealed only when Democrats ‘‘say they are sorry and offer to give us something in return,’’ Norquist said."

<snip>

The 10 states with the highest percentage of people paying the minimum tax all voted for Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts for president last month, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. But the state with the 11th highest percentage was Ohio, the state that went narrowly for Bush and decided the election.

----------------------------

:wtf:

The Blue States already pay more than their fair share! It's time to write to Congress, or begin a tax resistance movement. I AM SICK OF PAYING FOR THE BILLIONAIRES AND THE RED STATES!!!!

:grr:

[w4rma]

1. The alternative they propse will hurt blue states even worse. Lose-Lose.

One possibility being discussed within the administration and Congress is to drop the minimum tax at the same time as ending the deduction for state and local taxes. The loss of the AMT revenue would cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while the addition of revenue for ending the deduction for state and local taxes would bring in about $900 billion over the same period, according to Jenner.

[signmike]

2. from each according to his abilities...

...to each according to his needs

?

blue states carry red states now

[Chipper Chat]

3. How much more are the blue states going to take?

Don't you think it's time to get the secession ball rolling? That could be a big bargaining chip to put on the table.
Vermont and California already have grassroots movements to secede. If Minnesota and New York would push the door open a little things could heat up nicely. Just think how wonderful it would be to be "free of the freepers" and to quit subsidizing the red states with our tax money. Not to mention having real American freedoms again.

[MinneapolisMatt]

4. Chipper Chat...

I love the way you think!

[Yuugal]

5. Is there a movement here in NY?

Please send a link if you find one so I can join.

[The Zanti Regent]

6. Here is a place to start

http://secession.meetup.com/

The only thing you have left to lose is your chains.

[Chipper Chat]

9. Dont know about NY, but here is link to Vermont group

www.vermontrepublic.org

[unblock]

7. when grover norquist wants to do blue states a favor, hide your wallet!

the amt was created to keep rich people from avoiding taxes entirely via loopholes and deductions. rich people HATE the amt because all those juicy deductions don't apply to the amt calculation.

the ONLY problem with the amt is that the exemption has never been raised, and inflation has meant that more and more people each year with high state income taxes and home interest deductions now trip the amt threshold. not particularly rich people either.

the ENTIRE solution is simply to raise the exemption so that once again, it applies only to the rich.

but norquist ignores the real problem and blames it on the amt itself.

now he can pretend that he's doing middle class people a favor, and blue-staters a favor, by getting rid of the ENTIRE amt.

his interests are NOT in helping blue-staters, but in helping rich people, and his solution only helps rich people.

oh, and then, since rich people will go back to the good old days when they could deduct away everything and avoid taxes entirely, guess who will have to pick up the tab for the tax shortfall?

any bets that blue-staters will wind up paying? of course, just not RICH blue staters....

[The Zanti Regent]

10. If the Pope REALLY Meant what he said...

HE WOULD HAVE EXCOMMUNICATED GROVER NORQUIST!

He would have excommunicated phonies like Rick Santorum too.

[merh]

8. What a way to gain the confidence and support of those that

oppose you - tax them! This will only hurt the rethugs, what idiots. Piss off your enemies, that's the way to make sure they like you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Jaysus! They've got it all, and they still want more.

G'head you arrogant bastards. You shall reap what you sow.

[stellanoir]

12. Can you say. . .

"taxation without representation. . .?"

I can.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Might just be time for another.

If you've ever read the Declaration of Independence, you have to be struck by the colonists complaints about King George and the similarity to *co's crimes against the people. It's truly mind boggling.

[zann725]

13. Our new motto should be: "No taxation WITHOUT representation"...

worked for our forefathers.

And it applies to both this, AND the Election Fraud.

[wildflower]

14. I can't believe what I'm reading...open discrimination against Democrats?

By the government? On taxes?

I just can't believe it.

‘‘It is a tax of people living in ‘blue’ states,’’ said Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform.

...

The minimum tax should be repealed only when Democrats ‘‘say they are sorry and offer to give us something in return,’’ Norquist said.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Lots of Republicans in the Blue States, too.

What they do to us, they do to them as well. I'm all for making the blue states bluer. Afterall, that's where the people are.

[wildflower]

17. I know...but those quotes from Norquist...

and other stuff there about liberals seemed to make it clear it is openly intended to get liberals and Democarats.

It just shocked me. Not that they'd think it, but that they'd say it and do it.

The minimum tax should be repealed only when Democrats ‘‘say they are sorry and offer to give us something in return,’’ Norquist said.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

18. Again, the GOP is turning into the German Nazi Party!

This is proof!!!

[Chipper Chat]

29. And remember....

The German people languished and did nothing...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................until it was too late. Even today they feel the shame.

[eleny]

15. I wish that guy would slip on a patch of ice - Sheesh!

[Muzzle Tough]

19. Now just wait a minute everyone.

The tax was originally created by liberal Democrats to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. At the time, most of the rich happened to be Republicans.

Apparently now, most of the rich happen to be Democrats. But so what? Rich is rich. It shouldn't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans or indepentends or whatever.

The fact is that rich is rich is rich.

If it was a good idea in the 1960s, then it's a good idea now.

Why do I feel like I'm the the Twilight Zone when I read the comments in this thread? Most of the comments in this thread are against having higher taxes on the rich than on everyone else. Where the heck did that come from? Uh, people? The rich can afford to pay higher taxes than everyone else. It's not like anyone's going to be starving from this.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

20. $200K in Alabama is rich; $200K in MA is middle class

You can buy a mansion in Alabama for $200K; you can buy a parking spot in Boston for $200K.

[Muzzle Tough]

21. True. But according to the U.S. Constitution......

..... all federal laws and taxes must apply equally to all 50 states.

Furthermore, Kerry repeatedly said that he wanted to raise taxes on the richest 2%. Income of $200,000 falls in that category whether the person is living in Alabama or Boston.

Either raising taxes on the rich is good, or it's bad. It can't be both good and bad.

We are now in the biggest budget deficit ever. Something has to be done.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

22. Not when a starter home within 30 miles of Boston is $1 million

and 30 miles of Boston is where 80% of Mass's population is.

Here you go-how much would this beauty cost where you live? It's 1800 sq feet and 995K (price was reduced from over 1 mil)



It's even got PANELING!


Opportunity knocks! Rehab, add 2nd floor or demolish! 3br, 2ba slab contemporary on 1/2 acre lot in Olde Chestnut Hill. Large EIK, step down den with built ins, vaulted ceilings. Convenient to Heath School, T, Rte 9

[blurp]

25. You buy much more than just a physical house

"What you get" includes a community, scenery, schools, local government, neighbors, traffic, and all sorts of other things.

$1,000,000 for a small house means the other things you get are worth much more.

So, "cost of living" is really a silly notion when you realize that "living" means getting all these additional things.

[Muzzle Tough]

26. My answer.

They don't have 1/2 acre lots where I live.

The lots here are more like 1/16 acre.

If the people in Boston are legislating minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre, then no wonder why their houses cost that much.

Where I live, you can buy a house like that on a 1/16 acre lot for about 120K. But that's because we allow higher housing density, so prices are lower.

If Boston allowed the kind of density that we have where I live, then you could build eight houses on that land instead of just one. That would greatly lower the cost per house.

If the people in Boston are so concerned about housing prices, then why don't they allow higher density housing?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

28. The Boston area is very old, and is the second most densely populated

are next to NY Metro. You don't know what you're talking about. Most houses are multifamilies or sit on very small plots. Most houses do not come with parking because there is no land and space is at a premium.

[wicket]

35. you are correct

n/t

[MADem]

31. That's not the CITY

...it's Chestnut Freaking Hill--big difference. High end, ritzy. Go to Winthrop and you can find something nice for a mere $350, with a yard, but those annoying planes from Logan flying over all day.

In the city proper, most people don't own "houses" with yards and what not, they have condos, apartments, row houses, duplexes, triplexes, quads and so forth. In Boston, they'd plop an apartment house on that piece of land. Hell, even Kerry's house on Louisberg SQ is a town home.

You go out into the "neighborhoods"--Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, West Rox, East-a Bos, and so forth, and you see some yards, but not in the city center. There, your 'yahd' is the Common and the Public 'Gah-dins.'

[Chipper Chat]

30. Ye Gods - "Walden House"

nt

[unblock]

23. true enough, but why promote a repeal of the amt instead of a fix?

EVERYONE agrees that the current amt, with a minimum that hasn't been adjusted for inflation, is bad.

there are TWO proposals:

(1) repeal it: republicans are pushing for this because the rich will be able to avoid taxes. MASSIVE tax savings for unproductive tax shelters.
(2) fix it: raise the minimum so it goes back to affecting only the very rich people, as was the original intention, and index the threshold to inflation so this doesn't ever become a problem again. democrats advance this solution because it ensures that the progressive tax system is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

grover norquist, a republican operative, is confusing the issue by pointing out that the people affected by the amt live in blue states disproportionately. which is true enough, but besides the point.

perhaps inadvertently, you're leaving the impression that you prefer the republican solution.

[Disturbed]

24. Huh?

"The minimum tax should be repealed only when Democrats ‘‘say they are sorry and offer to give us something in return,’’ Norquist said."

Apologize for what?

[unblock]

27. exactly. the whole piece is a rw smear

the amt is a great piece of progressive taxation, a democratic law that's now affecting more and more unintended people due to an easily corrected technical flaw (not indexing the minimum for inflation).

and the republicans want to blame democrats for the technical flaw and pretend like the only solution is to throw the entire thing out. throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were, and then blaming democrats for the whole mess.

republicans could easily raise the limit and index it if they were willing. THAT would be a piece of bipartisan legislation if they wanted one. but they don't, of course.

[unblock]

33. notice how norquist cleverly uses "blue-staters"

he's making you think that the affected people are democrats. what he said was merely that they were in blue states. of course, red states aren't all red and blue states aren't all blue.

the affected people are the richest people, with the highest state income and property taxes and mortgage interest payments. it's just that inflation keep pushing more and more not-so-wealthy people up above the fixed minimum.

sure, it hits blue STATES more, because they tend to have higher taxes and home prices, but it's still the richest people in those states. i.e., still more likely to be republican even though they're in blue states.


but of course, as you point out, it was never meant to be a tax on republicans or a tax on people from certain states. it wasn't even supposed to be a tax on rich people. just a minimum to make sure that rich people didn't evade income taxes using unproductive shelters. which is still a good idea, just change the minimum so it only affects rich people.

[Deja Q]

32. Held for later...

See post 19, I'm rethinking my response.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

34. Did every blue stater see this article?

:grr: