Comments on: Column: Limited Edition

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:25:11 +0000

Here is a great quote from today’s New York Times. It was describing the difficulty economists have in forecasting the economy: “looking at the same set of data, and coming to radically different conclusions based on their politics, their temperament, and their idiosyncratic reading of history.” I’d say that applies to opinions about taxes, too.

By: Linda Diane Feldt

Linda Diane Feldt — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:50:54 +0000

I have great faith that the readership and those who comment on Chronicle articles are more likely to comment in order to educate, and that we actually read the comments and are interested in a broad base of opinion. We like to learn. I have changed my mind about some issues based on what I’ve learned here. I’m certain I am not alone. One example that springs to mind is a city income tax. I totally reversed my opinion (changed my mind)based on discussions here.
I have seen Steve change his mind, also admit when he is wrong. It is just one of his admirable qualities.

By: Marvin Face

Marvin Face — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:22:52 +0000

Steve, I know that minds are not easily changed. I speak from experience.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:32:23 +0000

I’m more open-minded than you seem to imagine, Marvin. Take a chance that we’re not navel-gazers and state your opinion on the subject. You might also consider whether you are open to changing your own views.

Interesting that you can disagree 100% with all three of us given that Vivienne and I (at least) aren’t all that much in agreement. Groupthink? Doesn’t look like it to me.

Like Vivienne, I think Bob’s examples provided some interesting perspective. Why she doesn’t see it as further supporting something more in line with Del’s proposal is still unclear to me.

By: Marvin Face

Marvin Face — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:10:50 +0000

Sure, my example above is pretty simplistic but it is intended to do two things: 1) It encourages people not to focus on the minutia of the tax code (Viv) and instead focus on how taxation influences people in sometimes unintended ways and 2) Every once in a while it is nice avert you gaze from your navel and consider that 50% of Americans have a different view on a subject than the insulated environment within the walls of Ann Arbor.

Again, I appologize if I offended anyone by having an opinion contrary to the majority here. Rather than be nasty, I chose a way to express my opinion with a simple story. I respectfully disagree 100% with what Mr. Martel and Ms. Armentrout (as well as Mr. Bean) have said here but I also understand that no matter what I say, I will not change their views on the subject.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:49:24 +0000

Bob Martel’s points are excellent. I agree, our current system is not adequately progressive. I’ve complained for years that the payroll tax (FICA, Social Security) is regressive. It should apply to all income without limit or at least to a higher limit. (Medicare, I believe, is without limit.) However, there is some relief in that SS benefits do go to lower income people with better proportionality. There are two bends in the formula so that as the contributing income rises, the amount of benefit decreases somewhat. Also, the Earned Income credit compensates somewhat for payroll tax at the lowest income levels.

Steve, this subject makes us all cranky. QED.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:05:32 +0000

Marvin (and others), please excuse my crankiness. I was confused and didn’t sufficiently do The Work (www.thework.com) before responding to your post. I’ll try again.

I don’t think your story captures the complexity or the reality of the tax system–for sales or income–nor the reality of who pays and how much.

Yeah, that felt better. Thanks for the feedback. You too, Scott.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:52:12 +0000

Please read about the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org) – it is a consumption tax that has answered many of the objections familiar to standard consumption taxes. It is not regressive (prebate), easier to collect (the state sales tax is rarely avoided) and while a lot of people like to claim that it would create a large black market, most economists do not agree with that. I had a lot of questions about the Fair Tax also when I first heard about it, now I believe it would be the most fair way for the government to collect their revenue that they need. Read about it, pros and cons, and make up your own mind, but don’t be blinded by half-truths being put out against it.

As far as the government “tinkering” with it after it is in, while, if we the people allow that, shame on us and we get what we deserve. Easier said than done, but any official that tries to tinker with the tax code after it is passed should face the consequences of those actions (i.e. no longer being in public office.)

The Fair Tax would be a huge boost to the state economy, as well as making for an extremely attractive environment for business, leading to more jobs, and more prosperity.

By: Dug Song

Dug Song — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:36:25 +0000

Curiously, Michigan was ranked 20th - above California (47th) - in one business tax index (by a small lobbying group in Virginia): Link to SBE Council But even with online wizards such as these: Link to Michigan Business Tax estimator The policy is still mind-numbingly byzantine.

By: Marvin Face

Marvin Face — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:23:34 +0000

Steve,

Sorry I struck a nerve when I interrupted the groupthink. Thanks for your open acceptance of alternative views of the issue.