Gephardt: Dean guilty of ‘gross hypocrisy’

[Nicholas_J]

Well it seems that the candidates are beginniing to focus heavily on Dean's close relations to business as governor in Vermont.



By KEVIN LANDRIGAN
Telegraph Staff
Published: Saturday, Dec. 13, 2003

Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt charged primary rival Howard Dean was guilty of “gross hypocrisy” in criticizing President Bush’s failure to close corporate loopholes that let companies move tax-free offshore to Bermuda while trying to lure companies back with state insurance tax breaks while governor of Vermont.

Gephardt said Dean often attacks Bush for cutting income taxes for former Enron Corp. CEO “Ken Lay and the boys,” but as governor, Dean reduced taxes on captive insurance companies in 1993 that helped convince Enron to locate its own insurance subsidiary in Vermont a year later.

At the same time, Dean raised sales taxes on working people and had to cut spending on human services to balance the state budget, Gephardt told reporters during a conference call from New York.

“Governor Dean has been engaging in gross hypocrisy,” Gephardt said. “He really has governed from the Bush model.”

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031213/NEWS08/212130349

[Wetzelbill]

1. Yeah, well in the late '90's

Gephardt hammered Clinton in a speech at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in a bid to undermine the boss of his party. Now, Dick acts like he was side by side with Clinton every step of the way to 8 years of peace and prosperity. I also happened to see him standing behind Bush as he signed the war resolution. If Dean is a hypocrite on the tax cutting issue then Geppy doesn't really have any room to talk in the first place.

[Nicholas_J]

3. Really now

Lending support to a corporation like Enron which has been found to have been guilty of gross human rights violations in many countries, like India, where they have been found to have bribed officials and and hired thugs to kidnap, tirture and kill people who were protesting the environemtal hazards the plat the set up were causing.

Another instance of Deans radical pro-corporatism.

He was found to have taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical comapnies days before vetoing legislation that they wanted killed in 1996, he arranged for the sale of Vermonts Nuclear power plant to the company desired to be given the sale who also gave Dean the first 111,000 dollars to start his presidential campaign. Dean is as cosy with industry as the Bush's are. There are a number of other cases, in which it seemed just too coincidental that right before or after making decicions, Dean was given a great deal of money by the people wanted the decisions made the way Dean made them.

This is one of the largest pieces of evidence that Dean's fiscal conservatism revoles around giving corporations large tax breaks, while having the average citizen pick up the tab.

[no name no slogan]

7. Don't forget that company...

The company that gave Dean the 110 grand is owned by the Koch brothers, who are notorious corporate polluters and have strong ties to the Cato Institute, those lovable libertarian wackos whose motto could easily be "I'm a fat rich bastard, and I got mine, so screw you".

In fact, I believe Dean even addressed Cato, and said that he was the kind of Democrat they would like...

Just say no to pro-corporate Democrats.

[Wetzelbill]

8. oh, I agree, I just do not like Gephardt going negative so much

He's a hypocrite too.

Dean seems too slick to me. I just don't trust the guy. I don't think he'd make a bad president, however, if Dean is our nominee then I think Dems just missed the boat when we could have somebody like Kucinich, Kerry or Edwards instead.

[tsipple]

2. Celebrate "Write Like Nedra Pickler" Day!

In the spirit of Nedra Pickler Day, here's my response:

When Dick Gephardt charges that Howard Dean helped lure insurance companies back to the U.S.A. using state tax incentives to create American jobs, he neglects to mention that Washington politicians like himself made no effort in 1993 to prevent companies from moving their offices to Bermuda and other offshore havens to avoid paying taxes.

He also fails to mention that Bush is quite unlike Dean in balancing budgets, and that, while Dick Gephardt was the Democrats' leader in Congress, Democrats rolled over while Bush's fiscal policies generated record deficits, jeopardizing essential government services for years to come.

[Nicholas_J]

4. However

Dean balanced budgets ALWAYS came at the expense of the average citizen, through the imposition and raising of regressive taxation, while cutting taxes that favored the wealthy and corporate interests. Always.

[XanaDUer]

5. The facts are there...

Dean raised sales taxes and other consumption taxes in VT, which are notoriously regressive , and cut income taxes and corporate taxes, which are progressive taxes.

It is as simple as that.

Dean took the burden off the wealthy and corporations, and placed it upon the average citizen. Either directly, or by cutting social services to do his budget balancing act.

Balancing budgets is not necessarily a good thing, especially if you are poor or the middle class, and made to subsidize tax breaks to the rich.

[dsc]

6. You can't have it both ways

He only raised sales taxes if you count his not letting them decrease back to the level they were before Shilling raised them. But he only lowered income taxes if you count letting them fall back to original levels a cut. You can't have it both ways. He either raised the sales tax when he left it at 5% instead of letting it fall back to 4% or he lowered income taxes when he let them fall back to 25% from 28% (of the federal bill). So which is it?

[XanaDUer]

9. Wrong.

Dean signed legislation raising the sales' tax back up in 1997. The law was proposed by Republicans in the VT House.

So which is it? Dean was asked by the Dems in VT to not allow the Snelling taxes to be rolled back in order to maintain the levels of social services that these increased income taxes allowed (three-tiered progressive) to occur.

After Dean rolled back the income tax, he began cutting social services and asking for millions in cuts to Medicaid and Legal Aid , and other such programs that benefit the poor and disenfranchised, in order to "balance the budget".

The corporations faced no such inconveniences, since he cut the corporate tax by 60%.

So-supporting big corporation (Wal-Mart, anyone?) at the expense of the average citizen, the poor, the elderly, is the progressive and Democratic way?

[dsc]

12. He inherited 5% and it is still 5%

that is not an increase.

[killbotfactory]

38. Acording to some washington types...

If it doesn't increase, it's a cut.

[AP]

10. Did he plug holes with sales tax money instead of collecting it...

...progressively?

And, let me get this income tax thing straight: Dean was faced with a surplus. He didn't need to lower income taxes, but he did. He lowered them all across the board even though VT, like every other state in the US collects taxes regressively?

Couldn't Dean have targeted breaks for the middle class? Couldn he have left the mildly progressive income tax rates up, and reduced sales taxes?

Couldn't he have used the bully pulpit to argue for progressivism in the tax code?

I believe that's what Gov Clinton did.

[Nicholas_J]

11. Also raised the automobile gasoline tax in 1997

http://www.artba.org/economics_research/current_issues/artba_gas_2003.pdf

Yes, Dean managed a surplus, but did so by asking for massive cuts to social services, and then in 1998 decided to use those surpluses for an income tax cut.

Lets look at all of the budgets cuts Dean requested to balance the Vermont Budget:

Howard Dean: Education Cuts to Balance the Budget
In January 1993, Dean proposed level-funding state aid to
education...

Headline: "Hidden Tax Hikes" (editorial)

An editorial by the Rutland Herald pointed out that "It would be a
mistake to believe that Gov. Howard Dean's proposed budget contains
no tax increases. There are tax increases in several areas... But
the increases are not immediately visible...

"Level funding of state aid to education would also shift more of
the tax burden to the property-tax burden to the property-tax payer.
In order to maintain the present share of support for education, the
state would have to increase its state aid by $7 million. Otherwise,
local school districts will either have to raise property taxes or
cut spending."




Headline: "Budget Cuts 'Could Hurt Children'"

Dean's 1992 budget "include a $6 million cut in state aid to
education and a small reduction in monthly benefits under Aid to
Families with Needy Children." This cut
was enacted.

Headline: "Dean Defends Cuts in State Aid to Education"

As a mid-year addition cut, Dean proposed a $2.1 million reduction
in state aid to education, which was not ultimately enacted: "Gov.
Howard Dean on Thursday defended his decision to cut state aid to
education..."

The Burlington Free Press editorialized, "Instead of reforming and
restructuring, the Dean administration is cutting... Some cuts - as
in state aid to education - pass the pain along to towns and school
districts."

Howard Dean: Cuts to Aid for the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD)
In 1995 Dean proposed a state budget cut of $920,000 for Aid to the
Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD) Program

About 13,000 Vermonters received aid from the program, 10,000 of
whom are disabled.

The state legislature rejected the cut. After the close of the
legislative session, when revenues came in weaker than expected,
Dean decided to cut a number of budget items - including the Aged,
Blind and Disabled (AABD) program - without Legislature's approval.

Dean had tried to cut the program several times before; all were
rejected by the Legislature. This time, Dean decided to push the
cuts without the legislature's approval.

Headline: "A Thousand Cuts"

"At first blush, a cut of $12.21 might seem like an inconsequential
nick in the budgets of those Vermonters who typically receive a
monthly SSI check of $517... But resistance to these small cuts
continues at the state and federal level because of the belief that
our needy citizens are being nicked, not just by one cut, but by so
many cuts that their lives will be driven to a desperate extreme."


Headline: "Dean Cuts Are Stirring Ill Feelings"

"State Senator Jeb Spaulding made note of the fact that Dean had
tried repeatedly to cut AABD and each time the legislature
refused. 'This is one (reduction) that the legislature has said 'no'
to for the last three or four years in a row.'"

After a legislative panel rejected the cuts by a vote of 5-2, Dean
said, "I'm not getting any help at all from the rules committee
dealing with this budget crisis, so we will go it alone." Rutland Herald, 10/25/95]

Headline: "Legal Aid Suit Seeks to Block Dean Cuts to AABD"

Vermont Legal Aid attorney Thomas F. Garrett filed a class action
suite on behalf of 5 AABD recipients against Governor Dean.

"Garrett said the Legislature rejected the governor's plan to cut
AABD benefits (in the spring)... He noted that that Dean
administration issued a bulletin on July 7, 1995, promulgating the
AABD cut 'in order to address a projected shortfall in general fund
revenues for fiscal 1996.'"


Headline: "Court Restrains Dean on AABD Cuts"

"Gov. Howard B. Dean lost a round in the battle for power Tuesday as
a Superior Court judge blocked his plan to cut benefits to 13,000
blind, aged and disabled Vermonters...

"The Dean administration planned to trim $920,000 from the 1996
state budget by reducing benefit levels in the state's Aid to the
Aged, Blind and Disabled program beginning Jan. 1... the cut was
intended to help reduce a state deficit that is expected to top $40
million by July."

Superior Court Judge John P. Meaker said in his decision, "Any
decrease in benefits for individuals living in the 'grip of poverty'
potentially deprives them of the ability to obtain essentials such
as food, clothing or housing."



Burlington Free Press says that "it shouldn't have taken a court to
tell Dean" not to cut AABD.

"Meanwhile, it shouldn't have taken a court to tell Dean it was bad
policy and bad law for him to deny a small cost-of-living raise to
Vermont's blind and disabled - when legislators had previously,
emphatically and repeatedly said they should get it. And it
shouldn't take a lawyer to tell him now that it will be bad politics
to appeal."

Howard Dean: Medicaid Cuts to Balance the Budget
In August 1993, Dean worked to cut Medicaid funding by $1.2 million,
to help balance the budget. The $1.2 million in cuts meant:


Eliminating dental coverage for 12,600 adults

Ending Medicaid benefits for 1,700 Vermonters aged 18 to 21

Ending vision, medical equipment and other benefits for 2,500
elderly and disabled Vermonters

Ending the practice of holding seniors' nursing home beds for 10
days while they are in the hospital



Seniors and advocates for the poor rallied to oppose the cuts, and
Vermont Legal Aid filed suit against the Dean administration. Dean
relented on $963,000 of the cuts in November.

Headline: "Hundreds Turn Out to Protest State Cuts In Medicaid
Program"

"A grassroots coalition of elderly and disabled Vermonters is
turning up the volume in its battle with Gov. Howard Dean over his
plan to cut $1.2 million in Medicaid benefits... nearly 300 people
packed a gymnasium at the State Office Complex to oppose the cuts."

"Michael Sirotkin, a lobbyist who has represented the interests of
the Coalition of Vermont Elders for 12 years... 'I have never
seen, in the history of the Vermont Legislature for as long as I
have been there, a more horrific cut than the one that is being
proposed today."


Howard Dean on those protesting his cuts: "There are interest groups
that are far larger than 200 people. These people were put on a bus
by the advocates."


Under pressure of a lawsuit filed by Vermont Legal Aid, Dean
scrapped $963,000 worth of the cuts that week.

"The governor said, 'the clincher' came when his legal advisers told
him that the Legal Aid lawsuits that challenged the constitutional
grounds for making the cuts could drag on until April. Dean said he
was confident that the state was on sound legal ground." Argus, 11/5/93]



"In his budget address in January 1993, Dean had proposed
eliminating Medicaid coverage for those aged 18 to 21...Estimated
savings would be $149,000." Dean was stopped by the legislature.



"The budget, a 3 percent increase, does not include any major cuts
in programs. But the state's most expensive programs - welfare,
Medicaid, state aid to education and special education - won't
increase."





In another mid-year budget cut in 1995, Dean proposed eliminating $4
million from Medicaid.



Headline: "Medicaid on cutting board"

"The proposal affecting the 4,000 senior citizens is one of the most
controversial. State administrators have suggested reducing income
eligibility from $741 monthly to $681 for a single person to qualify
for Medicaid. Officials said Vermont's income level is $108 higher
than Connecticut, the New England state with the income requirement
most similar to Vermont's. 'The cut is huge and affects almost
exclusively elderly women living alone,' said Michael Sirotkin, a
lobbyist who represents older Vermonters."

"One of the big losers would be the Starr Farm Nursing Center in
Burlington's New North end. The 100-bed nursing home won approval
for 50 new beds from the state in 1991, but now the state has
proposed not sending an additional $1.1 million a year in Medicaid
dollars it had promised the facility."


Dean of course did the same in 2002, after the Bush tax cuts reduced revenues to the states, and of course his campaign and supporters claim that he had not choice, but as the record above clearly shows, Dean had an agenda that revolved around balancing the budget by slamming social programs, raising regressive taxes like sales taxes and gasoline taxes, and cutting income taxes.

Vermont Senator Peter Shumlin clearly catororizes Dean and hs political platform when the Senate opposed Deans last budget cuts which would have completely eliminates most of Vermonts social service programs:

Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.

“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html


But now lets look at Dean's actions regaring taxes and corporations again:

But Enron apparently was attracted to Vermont because of the benefits offered under Dean's administration. Dean, who became governor in 1991, cut taxes in 1993 by up to 60 percent on the premiums paid by the parent companies to the captives at the same time he was raising the state sales tax and cutting spending. Dean's tax cuts on captives set off Vermont's boom in that industry.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/12/for_dean_captive_insurance_a_vt_boon/


So some of the wealthiest corporations in the world are given as much as a sixty percent tax break by Governor Dean:



Lets look at another article about Dean and his tax policies as viewed by Vermont Democrats:

Those who know Dean say he’s no classic liberal
By ROSS SNEYD

Associated Press Writer


...To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.

By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.

Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may_03/may_19/news/reg_vt0519a.asp

Those income tax increases placed by Snelling, which caused Vermont to get its deficit in check, and enabled the state to adequately fund its social programs, had absolutely nothing to do with Dean. THe decisions that enabled Vermont to begin to thrive were the policy and platform that the Democrats in Vermont forced on Deans predecessor.

Dean went back to old fashioned conservative economics in order to balance the budget after he refused to not roll back the three tiered progressive tax system that was put into place just before Snelling died. THe only methof that occured to Dean was the simple and unimaginative and very conservative, "balance the budget by cutting social programs" and then squeezing the poor and middle class with regressive taxation in order to make up the losses to the state revenes caused by losses in revenues from corporations.


You cant have it both way...Dean cannot be both a "Fiscal Conservative" and a "Social Progressive" when the clear evidence is that he favors corporate tax breaks, and breaks the back of the poor and middle class with regressive taxation.

[AP]

14. I'm going to just quote Edwards here...

In the last 20 years, a sea change has happened in our country. Working middle-class families have gone from being able to save for retirement or buy a house, to now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. These aren't poor Americans; they're the working middle class. And they are terrified that if something goes wrong: a lost job or a health care disaster, they're just one bad break away from falling off the cliff.

Combine this with what this president is doing to our tax code-shifting the burden from wealth to work-it’s a one two punch to the soul of our working middle-class. Every Democrat opposes Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. But I think something more radical is going on.

What this president is doing is trying to shift the tax burden in America from wealth to work. He wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the estate tax, all the taxation of wealth or passive income on wealth, and shift that tax burden to people who work for a living. It's an enormous mistake, and it is difficult to maintain a democratic way of life if the middle class goes away. As your president, I will make sure that the days of millionaires paying lower taxes on their stock portfolios than a fireman or a secretary are over!

And for the life of me, I can't understand why some other candidates in this race want to raise taxes on work and make life harder for the middle class. We know that President Bush's taxes did not do enough for the people who make the least. But our answer cannot be to raise taxes on the people who make the least, especially families with children.

We cannot say to a nurse’s aide who is working two jobs and raising two kids by herself, your taxes are going up by $1,400. We can’t. That $1,400 means a huge amount to her. Means she buys clothes for her kids. Means the mortgage payments are made. Means the bills get paid.

I don’t want to raise taxes on families that can barely pay the bills. I want to cut their taxes. I’ll help them so they can save for retirement or buy a first home. I’ll offer up to $5,000 to help buy a first home. I’ll provide a zero tax on their first dividends and capital gains, so these families can save.

We have to help the middle class more, not less. If we don't get that, we don't get what this election is all about. President Bush and the Republicans have forgotten the middle class. If we Democrats forget the middle class also, then we have forgotten who we are.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=436

[dsc]

18. Kerry raised gas taxes in 1993

was he wrong to do so? Yes or no not some bullshit answer.

[AP]

20. Consumption taxes on things you want to discourage the consumption of

are good for society. They allocate the social costs created by the consumption of that item in a way that makes sense. Sin taxes are fine. If they hurt low income people more, you take care of it other ways, LIKE BY GIVING THEM A BREAK ON THEIR INCOME TAXES, or by providing subsidized public transportation.

Sales taxes on everything else suck. They discourage consumption, and force poor and middle class people to pay more of their income in taxes.

[dsc]

21. If you look at the title of the post that was in response to

you will find it was "Dean raised the tax on automoblie gasoline". It was directly on point.

[AP]

25. What, you didn't want an answer to your question?

Can I still share my opinion?

[KaraokeKarlton]

13. This has been debunked several times over already

Comical how you post it in this section as if those who read here didn't see it already covered in GD.

Kerry is still losing ground in NH, by the way. And when he loses there his campaign is over. It doesn't matter how much you bash Dean, it will never help Kerry win.

[papau]

15. Why does Gep not notice how progressive the Vt sales is?

Don't Vermont sales tax exemptions make Vermont Sales tax Progressive?


I was going through the tax laws of Vermont and I noted the 21 pages of exemptions to the sales tax. Now we were always taught the sales tax was evil because it taxed the basic needs - and since basic needs are a higher percentage of a poor persons income, the rich paid too little. But of course if you exempt food, clothing, rent, utilities, medicine/drugs, the sales tax becomes progressive.

As far as I can tell each item of clothing costing less than $110 has no sales tax.

Likewise, no tax on:

Service contracts

Drugs intended for human use, durable medical equipment, mobility enhancing equipment, and prosthetic devices and supplies used in treatment intended to alleviate human suffering or to correct, in whole or in part, human physical disabilities.

Agriculture items used for raising of agricultural or horticultural commodities for sale.

Casual sales.


Sales of food, food stamps, purchases made with food stamps, food products and beverages sold for human consumption off the premises where sold.



Sales of newspapers and sales of tangible personal property which becomes an ingredient or component part of or is consumed or destroyed.

Rentals of furniture in furnished apartments or houses for residential use.

Sales of electricity, oil, gas and other fuels used in a residence for all domestic use including heating.


Sales of electricity, oil, gas and other fuels used directly and exclusively for farming purposes.

a home or business energy system on a premises not connected to the electric distribution system of a utility regulated under Title 30 and that otherwise meets the requirements of 30 V.S.A. § 219a(a)(3)(A), (C), (D), and (E); or

a hot water heating system that converts solar energy into thermal energy used to heat water, but limited to that property directly necessary for and used to capture, convert, or store solar energy for this purpose.

Sales of new personal computers and included software packages, for use exclusively in the Vermont business and directly in the activities defined in section 5930k of this title, if purchased by a high-tech business as approved by the Vermont Economic Progress Council.

and it goes on for 21 pages - and of course there is the easy not taxable clothing list for dummies section that is in A, B, C format:
Aprons

Athletic supporters

Baby Buntings

Bathing suits (but not diving gear, wet suits, etc.)

Beach capes and coats

Belts, buckles, suspenders

Bibs

Bowling shirts

Bridal apparel and accessories

Coats and wraps

Costumes

Coveralls

Choir and clerical vestments

Dresses, gowns

Dress shields

Ear muffs

Formal wear

Garter belts

Girdles

Gloves, dress, driving, general purpose work, cold weather, ski, snowmobile, (but not gloves such as welding gloves or special purpose sports gloves such as batting gloves, mitts, hockey gloves. Also not latex gloves or sanitary gloves designed for protection in special activities.)

Gym uniforms

Hair bows

Head and neck scarves

Hats, caps, turbans, millinery, yarmulkes (but not hard hats, or protective helmets)

Handkerchiefs

Hosiery, socks, garters

Hunting clothes (camouflage or blaze orange)

Hoods and hooded garments

Incontinence briefs

Jackets, windbreakers

Jogging apparel

Lab coats

Leg warmers

Leotards, tights

Lingerie

Neckwear, ties, scarves

Nightgowns

Ponchos

Rain coats, slickers, hats, (not umbrellas)

Shoulder pad for dresses or jackets (not sports equipment)

Ski pants

Sports bras

Sweat bands

Stoles

Tennis clothing

Underwear

Uniforms: band, military, professional, scout, sports uniforms suitable for ordinary wear. (The use of a team or sponsor’s name or a style recognized as associated with a given sport does not make a uniform unsuitable for ordinary wear.)

Work clothes

Now most everything else that is sold and not listed in the 21 pages is taxed. So is this a progressive sales tax, or a regressive sales tax?


:-)

[AP]

16. That's not progressivity.

Progressivity means the rate you pay is deterimend by how much money you make.

Rich or poor, you get those exemptions you listed. And rich or poor, you pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else on items not on the list.

That list tries to capture necessities, and they reflect the power of certain lobbyists. Certainly, if you spend most of your income on consumer goods (as many middle class people do now) these exemptions help, but it's only a slight degree of progressivity, and basically a reflection of how REGRESSIVE sales tax is.

[dsc]

23. that is crazy

That list includes virtually everything a poor person would buy. Clothes, utilities, food, shelter, and medical care as well as other services. BTW the clothing exemption was Dean's idea and ends at $110 per item. Other than my car and the rare resteraunt meal, I can't remember the last thing I bought that isn't on that list.

[AP]

24. What, poor people only buy enough to live? Poor people buy regular

consumer goods. Are you saying that the rich people buying all their luxury items are the only people paying into sales tax coffers?

dsc, did you buy people christmas presents this year?

Furthermore, rich people buy those same items, so they get the same tax break.

It's is a tiny nod to progressivity that doesn't dramatically change the fact that if you spend as much or more than you make each year, any sales tax potentially pushes you towards paying tax on money you don't even have. And rich people are rich BECAUSE they save more than they spend. A consumption tax for those people is a gift.

[dsc]

31. That is just absurd

I haven't done my shopping yet but fair enough on that. But I know that I spend well over 2/3 of my take home (which isn't my whole income btw) on the things that are exempt. I would bet it is much closer to 4/5. Assuming the higher figure that would be 1% of my income on sales tax. That is not, as you are stating, paying 5% of ones total income in sales taxes.

[AP]

32. Middle class people spend almost all the money they make.

The savings rates in the US are the lowest in the world.

If your sales tax rate 5%, and your effective sales tax rate is 2% and you're spending all your money on goods, you're spending 40% of your income on taxable items. If you make 10,000 bucks a year, that's $75 a week on goods that get taxed. Those numbers don't surprise me.

[dsc]

35. and that would be $500 a month

on rent, utilities, food, clothing, and all services. Sorry I don't buy that. Assume $300 for rent that leave $200 for all utilities and services (including insurance of all kinds), and food. Assuming they have a phone, electricity, and cable that accounts for $100 easily. Now we are left with $100 for everything else. Food, taxes other than sales, and all services including insurance.

[AP]

26. dsc, I was just thinking, I'd be as...

...mad as you (calling people crazy, and having a nasty temper when people say things you don't like) if I were in the position of having to defend this stuff.

Maybe for the sake of your blood pressure you should try supporting a candidate who doesn't force you into such a state.

[Nicholas_J]

17. Nope, not accordin to the Institute of Tax and Economic Policy

Which states that during the years Dean served as governor the entire tax system became more regressive:


Vermont’s Tax Code: No Breaks for the Poor and Middle Class
When all Vermont taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and $44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.


# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

“Vermont’s income tax is not progressive enough to offset the regressivity of its sales and excise taxes,” McIntyre said. “Taxes ought to be based on people’s ability to pay them, which means that the share of income paid in taxes should rise as income grows, not fall as is the case in Vermont.”


http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/vt%20pr.pdf.

Also, one must accept the fact that Dean was forced to sign the Two tiered property tax in Vermont, when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the plan Dean and House Republicans prefered was unconsitutional.

[AP]

19. That's not cool.

What's this guy's problem?

[dsc]

27. I took a close look at your link

and your computer must really edit alot. Let's take a look at the figures and facts.

First they give a chart that explains where they got their figures. I have several problems with their figures.

They claim that people in the lowest fifth of income pay 2% of their income in general sales taxes. For that to be true a person would have to spend 40% of his or her income on things to which the sales tax applies. It doesn't apply to rent, clothing, food, services, utilities, and medicine. I simply don't believe that can possibly be accurate. People making an average of $10,000 won't have $4,000 left when they have finished paying for food, clothing, shelter, and utilities. This figure if fully a fifth of the 10% they are claiming that the lowest fifth pays.

Another 1.2% comes from assigning sales and excise taxes applied to business to people. No explanation was given as to why this was reasonable or what businesses they were speaking of. Thus it is impossible to verify this. Some explanation would have been nice.

Finally they claim no federal offset for this group. This also can't be accurate. People in this income class who don't have kids are likely to pay federal income taxes (I do and am at the upper limit of it). While I don't claim that the offset would be huge it would be existent. This claim is continued up to 21k which is no way true.

All figures are from a chart on page three.

At the top of page four they have another chart labeled "Vermont Tax Trends" which lists progressive and regressive features. Only one regressive feature is mentioned the increase in cigarette taxes. Yes, that is regressive but I don't see a problem with it. It discourages kids from smoking and the money was spent on health care for kids that seems all good to me.

[AP]

28. You really can't believe people in the bottom quintile spend 40% of their

income on items incurring sales tax?

[dsc]

33. No

not when food, clothing, shelter, and every service is exempt. I know I don't have 40% of my total income left to spend on things not on that list. And I make close to the upper part of that range. There is no way, no way at all, people in that income range have 40% of their total income left aftre paying rent, food, utilities, and clothing. Using their top income figure of $16,000 and assuming full refund of SS taxes (which isn't true for everyone in that bracket) would give $1,333 a month. I am also assuming no income taxes at all. From their chart they spend 8% of their income on other taxes. That leaves $1226.36 a month. If 40% of their total income is spent on those other things that would be $533.20. That would leave $693.16 for food, rent, clothes, utilities, and services. I simply do not belive it is possible to buy those things for that amount of money. I plug what I pay into that equation and it doesn't compute. And this is assuming no federal taxes at all and no local taxes at all.

[AP]

36. Is fast food exempt?

That's a big expense for the poor.

Again, that's 75-100 bucks a week. You buy a TV and a vcr, and that a whole months worth of sales tax towards the 40%.

[dsc]

37. Where are they getting the money?

they can't print the stuff. I have no earthly idea what you pay for things like rent and utilities but there is no way on earth I could pay those things on the $450 a month they would have left. And if they took the food home with them it would be exempt. (that is what not consumed on premises means)

[AP]

40. Lots of sales tax items might be one-time large expenses.

Are kitchen appliances taxed? Washer's and driers? Auto parts (but not the service).

And they might be thousands of small things -- pens. I don't know.

[AP]

29. Re your other points...

1) business taxes -- many small businesses make money in this range of income (incorporated, unincorporated, or in partnerships). Perhaps this 1.2% is business taxes paid by small business people making less than 16K

2) There's no federal offset because the people in the bottom quintile are getting a tax refund (that's what the -.5% indicates), and the people in the second lowest quintile must be on both sides of the threshold for receiving the offset. I don't know what the threshold is, but, the total state tax burden for the second lowest quintile is only 1%, so their federal tax burden has got to be tiny. The EIC would have helped a lot of people to get tax refunds.


Some other noteworthy things:

- why the hell do the rich carry such a tiny property tax burden? Is it that property is relatively cheap in VT? Is there some special rule that gives rich people a break on property tax? Are the valuations based on sale price?

- notice the sales tax burden for the top and bottom quntiles. The bottom quintile's sales tax burden is 8X greater than the top quintiles. So the rich have 24X more income, but 1/8th the tax burden. That sucks.

- notice also that from '89 to '02, the bottom quintile's tax burden increase 7X more than the rate the top 1%'s burden increased (4.3% vs .7%).

The tax burden didn't go down on anyone, but the rich didn't really see that much change. Considering how much wealthier the top quintile got during that time (I've seen a national stat of 150%) I'd say they got off pretty easy.

[dsc]

34. Several things

the 0.5% is a state rebate not a federal rebate. It is clearly labeled as such. My point is that there is some federal offset. I am in the second quintile on their chart, who they also say had no offset, and I do pay federal taxes and thus would get the offset. Any single, childless person making 11k or more does. I don't claim it is huge but it is existent.

Second the study only covers until 2000, again this is also clearly labeled.

Third, I would imagine property in Vermont is pretty cheap. Low population densities lead to that. It is hardly surprising property there would be cheap.

Fourth you may be partially right in your first point but can't be entirely as it is labeled both sales and excise taxes.

[Albert Einstein]

22. Right on Gephardt!

Keep standing up for the truth.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Who's that I see?

[killbotfactory]

39. Gephardt guilty of "gross ineptitude"

"Let's get the issue off the table as quickly as possible!"

[genius]

41. That's part of why those of us who are informed don't like Dean.

The guy's Bush-lite.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

42. "those of us who are informed"

LOL. Thanks for informing us.