Progressive populism - the next big thing?

[kcballer]

I have written a bit on what I call "progressive populism" -- the trend we have seen in the country that, like its conservative cousin, comes from a deeply seated anti-elite and anti-establishment sentiment, but which is unique in that its manifestations are less anti-government than opposed to powerful interests. As seen in Oregon earlier this year, this trend led to the first income tax increase approved by voters in 80 years, one directed at the wealthy and at corporations. Now word comes from SurveyUSA, via Swing State Project, that voters in Washington are exhibiting the same kind of progressive populism in a strong way:

    A proposed initiative would create an income tax in Washington state on people making $200,000 per year and on couples making twice that. It would also cut the state's portion of the property tax by 20%, and end the business and occupation tax for small businesses. Do you support? Or do you oppose? This proposed initiative?

    Support: 66 percent
    Oppose: 27 percent

This measure, which would increase revenue while not raising taxes on the middle class, earns strong support across the board from the Washington electorate -- not only from Democrats (75 percent of whom support the initiative) but also from Independents (63 percent support) and even Republicans (57 percent support). Remarkably, the initiative draws support even from self-described Conservatives, who support the measure by a 50 percent to 45 percent margin.

I have said it before -- including in the halls of the West Wing: Progressive populism works. If the Democrats hope to be tap into some of the clear unhappiness of the electorate, rather than letting that discontent sweep them out of office, they would be well served to read these numbers and learn that while voters are definitively in an anti-establishment mood, they are not necessarily in an anti-government one, and, what's more, their unease about the current economic climate might actually compel progressive, rather than conservative, change if framed effectively.

http://mydd.com/2010/4/22/progressive-populism-on-the-rise

Glen Beck must be pis*ed!

[Soul Crusher]

Gmafb.   Progressive is just another word for govt control of everything.  Most people hate the govt and this new label won't matter.

[kcballer]

Gmafb.   Progressive is just another word for govt control of everything.  Most people hate the govt and this new label won't matter.

Where did it say it was after more government control?  Oregon voters and washington voters haven't said give us more government control, all they've proposed is a more progressive tax system, with cuts to small business and increases for big business. 

[Straw Man]

Where did it say it was after more government control?  Oregon voters and washington voters haven't said give us more government control, all they've proposed is a more progressive tax system, with cuts to small business and increases for big business. 

you don't have to say it

it's what 333 believes and his brain converts any words (spoken or written) into whatever it is he believes to be true

[kcballer]

you don't have to say it

it's what 333 believes and his brain converts any words (spoken or written) into whatever it is he believes to be true

That's true.  He doesn't have the ability to recognize it's a very similar movement to that of the tea party he so adores.  Albeit with less guns and threats of violence (not necessarily from tea partiers but from 333 himself)

[Skip8282]

Where did it say it was after more government control?  Oregon voters and washington voters haven't said give us more government control, all they've proposed is a more progressive tax system, with cuts to small business and increases for big business. 

Increasing taxes is not more gov't control just because it's aimed at the wealthy and large corporations? 

BTW, where do you think large corporations get the money to pay their taxes?

[kcballer]

Increasing taxes is not more gov't control just because it's aimed at the wealthy and large corporations? 

BTW, where do you think large corporations get the money to pay their taxes?

No, it's not.  If you're trying to say anything the government does is control then i guess cutting taxes could be thought of as government control, since the government is controlling how much you pay whether it increases or decreases. 

Depending on the company most likely consumers.  The same people who will now have more money in their pocket and be able to either choose a big business or perhaps a more competitive small business, since they too have had their taxes cut.  If corporations raise their prices perhaps the savings to small business will allow a more competitive market. 

[George Whorewell]

That's not progressive populism. It's just smart politics. You have a give and take at work. People at 200k+ and couples at 400k+ get a tax hit. But at the same time small businesses get a tax break and property taxes are reduced by 20% across the board. Give and take-- simple and obvious stuff. Unfortunetly, Obama and the democrats in Congress only subscribe to the leftist lunatic fringe notion of ecnomics. I don't like taxing the successful just for the hell of it, but if small businesses and property owners across the board are going to receive a break in return, then the policy seems a lot more acceptable.

[Soul Crusher]

And pigs are going to fly too.

It all sounds great in theory but never works that way.

[kcballer]

And pigs are going to fly too.

It all sounds great in theory but never works that way.

well it is and has been in two states - Oregon and Washington. 

[kcballer]

That's not progressive populism. It's just smart politics. You have a give and take at work. People at 200k+ and couples at 400k+ get a tax hit. But at the same time small businesses get a tax break and property taxes are reduced by 20% across the board. Give and take-- simple and obvious stuff. Unfortunetly, Obama and the democrats in Congress only subscribe to the leftist lunatic fringe notion of ecnomics. I don't like taxing the successful just for the hell of it, but if small businesses and property owners across the board are going to receive a break in return, then the policy seems a lot more acceptable.

That's true, sometimes it swings too far left and taxes become overwhelming, other times it swings too far right and taxes are cut for those of wealth but not for small and middle income and business owners.  I think this is a signal that perhaps people are waking up to a middle ground, lower taxes on certain things, raise them on others. 

[Soul Crusher]

well it is and has been in two states - Oregon and Washington. 

What always happens is that the tax revnues from "soaking the rich" never meet expectations and the so called cuts to the middle class and small business never materialize. 

Its just more economic and historical ignorance from those who have never run a business, payroll, or even lemonade stand. 

[kcballer]

What always happens is that the tax revnues from "soaking the rich" never meet expectations and the so called cuts to the middle class and small business never materialize. 

Its just more economic and historical ignorance from those who have never run a business, payroll, or even lemonade stand. 

You have proof that these will work out this way?  Please tell us the future 333 because you seem to know it.   

[Soul Crusher]

KC - havnt you learned not to test me?   


________________________ ________________________ ____


REVIEW & OUTLOOKMARCH 12, 2010.
www.wsj.com

Maryland's Mobile Millionaires
Income tax rates go up, rich taxpayers vanish..ArticleComments (129)more in Opinion ».
EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
.Twitter
________________________ ________________________ ______

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is the latest Democrat to demand a tax increase, this week proposing to raise the state's top marginal individual income tax rate to 4% from 3%. He'd better hope this works out better than it has for Maryland.

We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland's millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they'd collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%—fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn't fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Yes, a big part of that decline results from the recession that eroded incomes, especially from capital gains. But there is also little doubt that some rich people moved out or filed their taxes in other states with lower burdens. One-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008. Some died, but the others presumably changed their state of residence. (Hint to the class warfare crowd: A lot of rich people have two homes.)

A Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis of federal tax return data on people who migrated from one state to another found that Maryland lost $1 billion of its net tax base in 2008 by residents moving to other states. That's income that's now being taxed and is financing services in Virginia, South Carolina and elsewhere.

States like Florida and Texas have no personal income tax, so the savings for a rich person who stops paying taxes in Baltimore or Montgomery County can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Montgomery County, outside of Washington, D.C., is Maryland's wealthiest and was especially clobbered, losing nearly $4 billion in taxable income in 2008, with some 80% of those lost dollars from high-income returns.

Thanks in part to its soak-the-rich theology, Maryland still has a $2 billion deficit and Montgomery County is $760 million in the red. Governor Martin O'Malley's office tells us he wants the higher rates to expire "as scheduled at the end of 2010." But there are bills in both chambers of the legislature to extend the surcharge. The state's best hope is that politicians in other states are as self-destructive as those in Annapolis.

[Soul Crusher]

Come on you marxist/communists/liberals/"progressives"/ or whatever stupid ass label of the month you choose for yourselves, please show me an example where this has worked?
________________________ ________________________ __

Millionaires flee Maryland taxes
www.washingtonexaminer.c om

May 27, 2009
 
This home at 11804 Centurion Way in Potomac, Md., is listed for $4.5 million. (Andrew Harnik/Examiner)
 
The number of high-income taxpayers in Maryland has dropped by one-third, raising concerns that the wealthy are fleeing the state for its tax-friendlier neighbors.

About 2,000 residents filed returns in the highest bracket of more than $1 million in taxable income in April, down from about 3,000 in April 2008, according to the most recent data from State Comptroller Peter Franchot. Final numbers, which he said likely would include at least several thousand more million-dollar earners, will become available in October after tax returns that received extensions are filed.

“There’s no denying that the [tax] increase has had an impact on a sector of our citizens,” Franchot said.

Last year, the cash-strapped Maryland General Assembly raised by three-quarters of a percentage point the personal income tax rate for people earning more than $1 million in taxable income. That includes small businesses that file as “S corporations,” meaning the income is not distributed solely to one individual.

“Higher taxes drive people away,” said University of Maryland economist Peter Morici.

The tax man cometh

Local income tax rates
for the wealthy:
» Maryland: 6.25 percent for people who earn $1 million or more, plus local add-ons
» Virginia: 5.75 percent for people who earn $17,000 or more
» D.C.: 8.5 percent for people who earn $40,000 or more
» Delaware: 5.95 percent for people who earn $60,000 or more
» Pennsylvania: 3.07 percent for all earners, plus local add-ons

Source: Tax FoundationBut he added that raising tax rates for these millionaires is less likely to cause top earners and entrepreneurs to flee the state than to dissuade outsiders from moving in.

“It’s hard to fathom what the government gives people in Montgomery County that it doesn’t give them in Fairfax,” Morici said, adding that the wealthy are less likely to take advantage of tax-funded services such as public education.

A Tuesday editorial in The Wall Street Journal blasted the Annapolis legislature for “fleecing the wealthy” and driving them away with the increase to 6.25 percent.

That amounts to a $7,500 tax increase to $62,500 in personal income taxes for residents earning $1 million, and a $37,500 bump to $312,500 for people earning $5 million, in addition to county taxes of up to 3.2 percent.

“On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25 percent of nothing,” the editorial said.

Franchot called the editorial “harsh” and “premature,” saying conclusions could not be drawn until October’s numbers are finalized, and added that the vast majority of tax drops would be caused by lower incomes resulting from the recession.

And while he expressed appreciation for the state’s wealthiest residents, he said, “I’m more concerned about the hundreds of thousands of working families who have seen what little wealth they have vanish.”

In 2007, Marylanders who earned more than $1 million accounted for one-quarter of 1 percent of taxpayers, but nearly 16 percent of income tax revenue for the state, according to Franchot’s office. Those who earned between $40,000 and $200,000 accounted for about 31 percent of taxpayers and 49 percent of revenue.

Overall numbers reveal a 27 percent decline in total income tax revenue to about $1.3 billion in April 2009, from $1.7 billion in April 2008.

Dr. James Pelura, chairman of the state’s Republican Party, worried what the drop-off meant for the less mobile middle class.

The wealthy “are fleeing,” he said, “leaving a shortfall in taxes that they used to pay, which results in higher taxes for you and me.”

lfabel@washingtonexaminer.com

[Straw Man]

Come on you marxist/communists/liberals/"progressives"/ or whatever stupid ass label of the month you choose for yourselves, please show me an example where this has worked?
________________________ ________________________ __
Franchot called the editorial “harsh” and “premature,” saying conclusions could not be drawn until October’s numbers are finalized, and added that the vast majority of tax drops would be caused by lower incomes resulting from the recession.

333 - why didn't you highlight this section of the article.

Don't you thinkg is possible that people in the very highest tax bracket might have made less money in 2009 than in 2008?

remember all those jobs losses you take so much glee in posting.

I don't know if you've ever made really good money (250k +) but in the years when I have made good money I never sat around and worried that my taxes were 3% higher and it also never affected my motivation to keep making money

On the other hand, in years when my income was less I worried more about my lower income than my taxes

[kcballer]

Please prove how these are relevant other than showing a tax cut, where is the tax reduction for small business?  As i've said you have zero proof that a taxation system as proposed in Oregon and Washington will not work.  ZERO.  This is a progressive system backed by both parties in the state of Washington AND by independents.  How does it feel to know you're own party faithful support it?  

[kcballer]

333 - why didn't you highlight this section of the article.

Don't you thinkg is possible that people in the very highest tax bracket might have made less money in 2009 than in 2008?

remember all those jobs losses you take so much glee in posting.

I don't know if you've ever made really good money (250k +) but in the years when I have made good money I never sat around and worried that my taxes were 3% higher and it also never affected my motivation to keep making money

On the other hand, in years when my income was less I worried more about my lower income than my taxes

Ouch! Straw come on he wants to throw around buzz words, that's basically all he is.  A buzz word and picture troll.

[Straw Man]

Ouch! Straw come on he wants to throw around buzz words, that's basically all he is.  A buzz word and picture troll.

he also likes jumping to conclusions without all the facts

[Soul Crusher]

Really?  You think I picked one isolated example? 
________________________ ____________________

New Jersey's richest citizens flee its taxes
www.examiner.com
February 4, 9:00 AM


The richest citizens of New Jersey, who in the past generated most of the tax revenue, have been fleeing the State, mainly for some of the least likely tax havens, a new university study shows. That the State now has one of the worst budget problems of any State in the Union is no coincidence--and that the trend established itself six years ago and has continued through two Democratic administrations and legislatures might not be a coincidence, either.

In a study conducted by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College and reported today in The Star-Ledger (Newark), the total aggregate personal net worth of New Jersey's residents fell by $70 billion between 2004 and 2008--a sharp reversal of a net $98 billion inflow that had occurred during the previous five years. The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey had noticed that many of the state's biggest givers had moved out. But this is not the first study that has shown that the highest taxpayers have been moving out: Jim Hughes and Joseph Seneca of Rutgers University had found that total gross income had fallen by $8 billion in 2005.

Jon Corzine as Governor (Credit: User Tony

the Misfit on Flickr.com; Creative Commons)Hughes, dean of Rutgers' School of Planning and Public Policy, blames New Jersey's tax structure. Noting that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the State's taxes, Hughes cited the results as an explanation for the State's current budget woes. He further warned that if some of these taxes are not repealed or reduced, every high-wealth resident will flee.

Taxes in New Jersey are certainly high enough, and all have increased during the study period. Property taxes are especially high, though this might be due in part to excessive land valuations in a State having the highest population density in the country. New Jersey also taxes all estates in excess of $675,000. More to the point, many States do not tax income or estates at all, and property valuations and tax rates are much less.

As striking as the net outflow is, the list of the tax havens that receive most of the wealth is frankly strange. Florida leads the list, as one might expect, because Florida is the favorite State in the country to which to retire. But New York and Pennsylvania also rank high on that list. Their tax structures are not much more favorable than that of New Jersey, but land valuations are considerably less.


Chris Christie (as US Attorney)The incoming administration of Governor Chris Christie seized upon these findings as vindication of what a spokesman described as their own warnings that "the spending and taxing habits that we've all experienced" must stop.

Commenters on the article vary from those announcing their own plans to leave the State, to anecdotes about wealthy taxpayers who maintain out-of-state residences and live in those residences as long as the law requires in order to avoid filing New Jersey income-tax returns. Most commenters lay the blame on the immediate former governor, Jon S. Corzine--though in all fairness, his predecessors, James B. McGreevey and former Acting Governor Richard Codey deserve almost as much blame, since they were in office at the beginning of the study period. Other commenters noted the parallel between the tax policies followedby McGreevey, Codey and Corzine on the one hand, and President Barack H. Obama on the other.

Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.

[kcballer]

he also likes jumping to conclusions without all the facts

exactly.  he's trying to say that a tax increase for the rich is the same as a tax increase with incentives for small business and decrease in property taxes for all.  He's very misinformed as usual.  He's on his stupid rant. 

[Straw Man]

Really?  You think I picked one isolated example? 
________________________ ____________________

New Jersey's richest citizens flee its taxes
www.examiner.com
February 4, 9:00 AM

My family fled New Jersey around 1972

I'm not sure if it was because of the taxes but I assume so

why else would anyone leave that paradise

[Soul Crusher]

exactly.  he's trying to say that a tax increase for the rich is the same as a tax increase with incentives for small business and decrease in property taxes for all.  He's very misinformed as usual.  He's on his stupid rant. 

Because there is no such thing as a tax cut for small business that means anything substantial.  That is a bogus selling point to the gullible public like yourself. 

[kcballer]

Because there is no such thing as a tax cut for small business that means anything substantial.  That is a bogus selling point to the gullible public like yourself. 

hahaha oh please 

[Soul Crusher]

Please show me the "meaningful tax cuts" the small business and middle class got?  And please dont insult me with crap like obama's $7 a week bs.