OKLAHOMA CITY — A year after Republicans swept into office across the country, many have trained their sights on what has long been a fiscal conservative’s dream: the steep reduction or even outright elimination of state income taxes.

The idea has circulated among academics and think-tank researchers for years. But it’s moving quietly into mainstream political discourse, despite the fact that such sweeping changes would almost certainly mean a total rewiring of tax systems at a time when most states are still struggling in the aftermath of the recession.

“I think there’s going to be more action that way,” especially as Republican governors release their budget plans, said Kim Rueben, an expert on state taxation at the Brookings Urban Tax Policy Center.

Last year, GOP lawmakers in many states quickly went to work on a new conservative agenda: restricting abortion, cracking down on illegal immigration, expanding gun rights and taking aim at public-employee unions.

Emboldened by that success, the party has launched income tax efforts in Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina. But it’s not clear how all those states would make up for the lost revenue, and Rueben said she’s not aware of any state in modern history that has eliminated an income tax.

Nine states already get by without an income tax, mostly by tapping other sources of revenue. Nevada and Florida rely on sales taxes that target the tourism industry. Alaska has taxes on natural resources, and Texas imposes substantial property taxes. The other five states are: New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming.

But in the rest of the country, income taxes pay for bedrock government services, including roads and bridges and schools and prison systems.

In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Mary Fallin says gradually cutting the top income-tax rate of 5.25 percent will make the state more attractive to businesses, help spur economic growth and ensure Oklahoma is competitive against neighboring states such as Texas. Although the personal income tax does not apply to corporate earnings, supporters say company executives and employees will prefer to live in a state that doesn’t tax personal income.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is pushing this year to consolidate four personal income tax brackets and to phase out corporate income taxes. She promises to seek more tax cuts in the future.

Missouri has a bill to reduce income taxes and offset the lost revenue by raising the cigarette tax.

And Maine’s GOP-controlled Legislature voted last year to lower the income tax from 8.5 to 7.95 percent, taking 70,000 low-income citizens off the income-tax rolls.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has suggested reducing the individual income tax rate from 7.8 percent to 7.6 percent, the same as the corporate income tax rate, and then gradually lowering both to 7 percent. But business groups have said they would rather get help eliminating the personal property tax businesses pay on their equipment.

In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich’s 2010 campaign included a pledge to phase out the state’s personal income tax, though without a timetable for doing so. Thus far, the state’s fiscal situation has stymied the governor’s efforts to achieve his goal, other than implementing a previously scheduled income tax cut.

As one way to compensate for the lost revenue, the Oklahoma governor and others have suggested eliminating other kinds of tax breaks and incentives, specifically transferrable tax credits offered to certain businesses. But that would still fall woefully short in Oklahoma, where the income tax provides more than one-third of all state spending.

Still, 23 Republicans in the Oklahoma House have signed up as sponsors of a measure to abolish the income tax over the next decade without raising any other taxes.

“Our goal is to transform Oklahoma into the best place to do business, the best place to live, find a quality job, raise a family and retire in all of the United States. Not just better than average, but the very best,” state Rep. Leslie Osborn said.

Lower taxes appeal to many voters, but some wonder how the state could get by if lawmakers abandon a major source of money.

“I personally would favor paying less taxes, but to me, it’s like where are we going to make up the difference?” said Steve Schlegel, a bicycle shop owner in Oklahoma City. “I already feel like government is underfunded at the moment.”

Roger Garner, a letter courier, said he would accept higher property taxes if it meant eliminating the income tax.

“Get rid of it,” Garner said. “Florida doesn’t have it. Texas doesn’t have it. We don’t need it. If something is needed, we can figure out a way to pay for it at the local level.”

Conservatives say the lost revenue will be made up by increased economic activity — more businesses paying corporate taxes and more employees paying property taxes and spending money. But economists warn those predictions are unrealistic.

Without creating an alternative funding system, “it’s clearly irresponsible to propose taking action against the income tax,” said Alan Viard, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

Former Oklahoma Treasurer Scott Meacham, a Democrat who helped negotiate a series of small income tax cuts, urged state leaders to be careful tinkering with the state’s economy, which is currently enjoying double-digit revenue growth and has one of the 10 lowest unemployment rates in the country.

“If you look at our state’s economy, it’s doing very well versus virtually any other state, whether they have a state income tax or not,” said Meacham, who is now a member of the board of directors for the State Chamber, an association of Oklahoma business and industry.

Voters, he added, “ought to be very concerned, especially in an election year, when the politicians are telling them they know what’s best for them from an economic standpoint.”

In neighboring Kansas, Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has a sweeping plan to overhaul income taxes that calls for offsetting income tax cuts by canceling a scheduled drop in the sales tax. But it would increase the tax burden for the state’s poorest households. And he faces resistance from within his own party over concern that the sales tax increase was supposed to be a temporary fix back in 2010.

A similar debate is unfolding in Oklahoma, where the plan calls for reducing the income tax from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent by eliminating the personal exemption for every household member, including children, as well as the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

An analysis by the Oklahoma Policy Institute shows those steps would raise taxes for 55 percent of Oklahomans, mostly low-income families and those with children.

“We have grave doubts about this proposal,” said David Blatt, director of the institute. “We see stumbling blocks in every direction. You either decimate state services or shift the burden onto those that can least afford it.”

Associated Press writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kan.; Seanna Adcox in Columbia, S.C.; David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo.; and Glenn Adams in Augusta, Maine; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and John Miller in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this report.

Join the Conversation

110 Comments

  1. Well, if I were a stupid Republican/Tea Party member and knew I was going to be out of power next November I’d do everything I could to make all my self-indulgent dreams come true too.  I’d say that’s where the essence of this story is coming from.  Now if I were a smart Republican/Tea Party member I’d try to  actually do something productive with the help of some Democrats that would help “The People” and build a stronger society.  In that way I might convince some voters to spare me and thus survive the oncoming GOP/Tea Party blood bath.  Let’s just see how many smart conservatives there are left in politics.

    1. I hate to break this to you Still, but come next January the only republican left in Augusta is going to be Mr. LePage. 

    2. blah blah, you are ill informed,  I
      can’t even suffer reading your blob of teletubby sillynes, sorry

      1. “Sillynes?”  Wait just one moment while I run to check that meaning in my Republican/Tea Party dictionary.  Oh.  As I feared, you would have to be counted among those conservatives who are not deserving of our votes.

        1. It is sad, perhaps they’ve simply spread their smear campaigns too thin? Yesterday it was smearing little girls in the Girl Scouts. Today for me it’s poor “spellin” and one word non-responses. Guess they’ve finally hit the bottom of their barrel.

  2. The greatest idea I’ve heard in a long time!!

    The best way to kill a tumor is to cut off its blood supply.

    1. Yup, and this is like a tourniquet applied to the whole arm to save a finger.

      Have another Sam Adams, buddy and keep them great ideas comin’.

  3. Great…because my property taxes aren’t high enough?  Do we expect the few remaining companies make up the difference before they leave or go belly up?

    1. My sister lives in NH. I’d rather pay my income, property and sales taxes combined than her property taxes!!! Over the top.income

      1. Maine Property Taxes are kept artificially low. Towns and Cities in Maine are heavily reliant on Revenue Sharing. This means money is collected in higher state income taxes, fees and use taxes. Then a portion of that money is returned on a sliding scale basis to each town and city. The trouble is that if a town needs 1000 dollars from each property owner to finance the towns operations they are only collecting 200 dollars of it and are relying on the state to make up the other 800. Experience tells us that is not something to rely on. If you have to pay 1000 dollars anyways would you not prefer that 1000, to go right in to the town coffers from the beginning? (I use the 1000, 800 and 200 dollars as an example figure only)

        1. I would prefer not to pay her property taxes which are much more than I pay in property, sales and income combined by almost 150%!!!!

        2. 2 additional items to think about, when small towns rely on the state for additional assistance they also get a say in how you spend it, funding for local education is a great example.  the second is that we have a large number of properties that are multi unit apartment buildings and they pay the same rate on property taxes as single family homes but normally create more of a drag on the community for resources, why not tax income properties at a higher rate to make sure that every citizen in the community is paying their fair share

          1. It depends on your local assessor, but I know that in my town multi’s are taxed at a higher rate because they are considered to have significantly higher value.

      2. Really good point Pondlady—what the article didn’t mention about New Hampshire is that its property taxes are through the roof and those taxes don’t have anything at all to do with your income or ability to pay.  If you bought a house and lot in 1975 for 40,000 and had an income of 30,000, and today you have the same house and lot, valued by the tax authorties at 300,000, then you are going to pay a lot more in taxes for the same property, regardless of your income level (which may well go down after your retirement)

  4. “And Maine’s GOP-controlled Legislature voted last year to lower the
    income tax from 8.5 to 7.95 percent, taking 70,000 low-income citizens
    off the income-tax rolls.”

    Just as Bush took millions off the income-tax rolls that lying Dems call the Bush Tax Cut for the rich.

    1. Yes, the Bush budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthy did give the huge majority of the tax breaks to the wealthy. It added trillions to the deficit over 10 years. And you want it characterized as what? Or do you listen to the lies that say it was tax relief for the poor?

      And by the way, since the deficit grew and the wealthy got to pay less, who do you think will pay this deficit? Yes, I know, the same liars you follow also say that fewer taxes on the rich means they will make some minimum wage jobs for the rest of us. So far, it ain’t happened, and if history is any guide, it never happens after a tax break for rich folks.

      So you can ignore the fact that most of the Bush tax cuts went to millionaires, and ignore the fact that tax cuts for wealthy corps. and individuals has never increased employment, and ignore the fact that deficits have never gone down after tax cuts. Your reality is either drug induced or you are one of the bobble heads that watches Fox and nods continuously.

      1. The Bush tax cuts went for EVERYONE  including taking millions of low income people completely off the roles. You know that is the reason that nearly 50% of people pay no income tax. What is your problem with the truth?

          1. You have a problem with low income people not paying taxes?  How about the Stimulus that Obama set up so many corporations including GE paid zero income taxes. Is that ok?
            I still don’t know why you think low income folks should pay more taxes.

          2. You wrote: ” How about the Stimulus that Obama set up so many corporations including GE paid zero income taxes. Is that ok?”

            Wow, talk about not knowing what you are talking about! You think it is because of the stimulus that GE paid no taxes? You can’t even repeat what you hear on Faux News right! And to get you up to speed is not woth the time. Here’s a hint: You should a bit more reading before you post, because what you write makes no sense at all. No taxes from GE because of stimulus. What kind of lies will you write next.

          3. Your correct, they paid ZERO in taxes because of the tax codes. The stimulus had nothing to do with it. Ironic how a company that owns NBC and MSNBC would be in that position isn’t it? I couldn’t care less if they didn’t do anything illegal anyway. Good for them, they gave the investors a good return.

          4. Maybe you misunderstood me. Low income people pay a myriad of taxes. Including property taxes, gas taxes,roadway tolls,Excise taxes,licences, and a million other levis too numerous to mention here. My problem is I still don’t why Mitt Romney should only pay 14% on billions when I am paying 25% on 74K. As far as corporations not paying their fair share? I think you are confusing Bush with Obama.

          5.  You understand that it’s a tax code issue though right? One thing not mentioned in the whole “Buffet Rule” thing is this. Warren Buffet paid less in taxes because he was legally able to and I don’t recall reading or hearing anyone say that he CHOSE to pay more. So although he may have felt it to be ethically questionable he STILL took the breaks.  If I we’re in his position I would do the same. “I’m fine if you wanna tax me more, but in the meantime….” 

             I just don’t think what someone paid LEGALLY in taxes should be an issue. Now what he would like to do with that same tax code in the future? That’s what we need to know.

        1. The reason that 50% of the people pay no income tax is that they do not earn enough. They do not earn enough because they work for “public assistance” wages for big corporate America. Greed has brought this country to it’s knees, plain and simple.

          1. Greed is expecting others to pay for your existence. Everyone should pay something. If you only took responsibility to educate yourself enough to qualify for a minimum wage job, then maybe you need a second job.
            Your ideas always seem to be handouts, and anger towards successful people. 
            If you did educate yourself and can’t find a job in your field, then you chose the wrong field for this area, poor decision, and should probably move to where there is a demand for your profession.
            Why does a second job or moving to get a job always seem to be out of the question? Responsibility is doing whatever it takes to take care of your family, not expecting others to do it for you.
            Just an observation, but the conservative “take responsibility for yourself” movement is growing not shrinking. You have at least 2 years before you can attempt to put another nanny in office. That’s a long time to survive on handouts. I would be finding some ambition if I were you. The federal government is cutting funding, and the state is cutting services instead of passing it on to the already over taxed population.

          2. Greed is expecting others to pay for your existance? Of all the defenses of greed I have heard over the years that one is the strangest by far. I happen to be very well off in life with no debt, no bills, and my own successful small business. I only have a handful of years until I retire. I am angry at greedy people out of fear for my kids and grandkids. You can explain things away all you like, but the failure of wages to keep pace with inflation is the single biggest problem with our economy today. It is the reason our government is running short of money to operate. When people work for less, they pay less in taxes. It is the reason that the American dream is slipping father away for many. While others hoard billions by paying their employees “public assistance” wages. There are far too many jobs around these days that actually pay LESS than they did 20 years ago. If you do not see the folly in that, you are blind to reality, just like the entire GOP.

            ——————————

          3. Soooo are all of the 50 percent that pay in ,the bad guys?? Reports I’ve read state that less then 2 million people in our country make over a million dollars. What about the other 200 million. Are they all the evil corporate people we should despise? is someone allowed to drive a fifty thousand  dollar car without worrying a member of OCCUPY whatever this week thinking they are the EVIL WEALTHY  and bashing them. therein lies the real problem. Poor people think middle class people are  wealthy.  I keep saying i’m with you but it’s the POLITICIANS WE NEED TO BE ON TOP OF. Like it or not many wealthy  people on both sides of the aisle take full advantage of the tax codes. Demand they be changed but calling them crooks is dishonest and self-serving.

             DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

             TAX CODES that our GOVERNMENT is responsible for are the reason wall street MAKES MORE MONEY THEN YOU THINK THEY SHOULD. 

             You want changes??? rail at the government. You appear simple minded attacking  business that can only do what the government allows. 

             Is business going to change without tax regulation?????????? NOOO why would they?? Would you??? 

             The government makes the rules yell at them.

             You appear small and envious always saying the same thing, over and over…

          4. Your reply was a bit long and rambling. It lacked focus, a single counter point, and flow. I have never once condemned wealth, not once. You have read that in between the lines every single time. I have condemned greed. Big difference. I do not want to raise the taxes on the top 1%, I want to cut them off completely. I have no desire to support anyone who will not work. I also have no desire to support someone who does work, just because they work for “public assistance” wages. I buy American, pay my fair share in taxes, and encourage others to do the same. Small and envious of what? Greed? Hardly. I have actually been successful at times in my life and I am self employed today. I have known the thrill of owning an S class Mercedes, but I now drive a Ford. I have owned a large ocean going yacht, but I now own a canoe. I have traveled the world, but I now stay within 5 miles of my house. I have raised my kids, but they need help with theirs. You know very little about me, but you claim to know me well in your diatribes. Talk about small.

            ——————————

          5.  Whatever you say, Everybody’s a superstar online. good for you.

             The only point I was making and I think I made it perfectly clear is  that good, bad and indifferent take advantage of the tax codes.  You want change you CHANGE THE code. You want different policy? That would fall under the GOVERNMENT to make changes.

             One more time. The GOVERNMENT makes policy that either aids or hinders business.

             What purpose does your babbling as though your envious  of business instead of  calling for government TO STOP THEM  serve??? I believe you you say your not envious. 

             Are you actively involved or are you just bitter about bad decisions and a life squandered?

              READ A FEW OF YOUR OWN POSTS.   .

             

          6. You draw the conclusions that you want to draw based on your opinion of how things are. Like I said, my life has been very successful and has not been squandered by any stretch of the imagination. I do not have a problem with success. I do not have a problem with business. I do not have a problem with government. I do not have a problem with the opinion of others. I have a problem with greed, period. Read a few of my own posts? My message has been consistent from day one. No variations. No Flip flops. No quarter asked, none given.

          7.  “I do not have a problem with government” 

             Therein lies the problem. 

             Can I have a show of hands, all those that don’t have a problem with government?

            You hear the crickets?

          8. Well then all those who have a problem with government better go look in the mirror. Because in a Democratic society, we are the government, good or bad. Did you just hear a pin drop?

          9. Well then beyond some idealistic pie in the sky “everybody shares everything” exactly what is it that our government is doing that looks so good?  You claim to  be or have been or whatever, WEALTHY. Without government involvement  changing tax codes, closing loopholes, what exactly would you like to see happen.

             What’s your position??? Business’s are in business to make money.

             I’m getting the impression your answer starts with….. “CORPORATIONS SHOULD DO THIS” 
             Well guess what ?THEY WON’T DO THIS OR EVEN THAT  because they are working within the LAW . Call them what you want what the do is LEGAL

             WHAT WOULD YOU SEE DIFFERENT WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT BEING INVOLVED???

            .
             Please just answer me that ONE question. Without using anything as bnaive”Corporations should do this”  Of course they should…; BUT THEY DON”T

             If that is your stance then you don’t have a stance.

        2. The fact is, the Bush tax cuts did not take millions off the tax rolls. Most of them were not paying Federal income taxes already, so your statement is false, that is, it is not true. Do you have a problem with truth?
          So let’s see, the richest 1% get a tax break of $68,079 in 2013, and the bottom 60% save $487 in 2013. What a wonderful tax system change, and you fail to show how it helped “millions of people”.

    2. It’s a good thing the working poor got those tax breaks. Because they needed them to set some money aside when their jobs disapeared.

      1. Haven’t you heard? Unemployment is going down and the low-income are still off the roles. Thank President Bush for that.

        By the way did you know that your income tax will go up this year thanks to Obama?

        He let expire (without media notice it seems) the $400 per person tax credit “Making Work Pay Credit”. Schedule M.  I just found that out last night while preparing my tax reports.

        The IRS website makes on mention of it in this years forms.
        Here is the link for 2010.

        http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=218614,00.html

        In other words, Obama just raised the income tax on most Americans and didn’t even tell you.

        1. If you dig deeper, you will discover that President Obama did not “let expire the $400 per person “Making Work Pay” tax credit”. It is the result of the political trade-offs that he has continuously been put into a corner to make by Congressional Republicans in order to get anything passed. Relatively speaking, he has gotten little in return while the Right Wing has refused to budge on anything that protects the wealthiest Americans. Is your memory selective or have you  forgotten that in December the Republicans were balking  at retaining a tax credit that benefitted small businesses’ hiring of employees?  

          For the Right Wing of the GOP tax cuts for the rich are ok, but it’s only lip service for middle and lower socio-economic individuals and families. Supposedly, lowering the tax responsibilities of the wealthiest among us (notwihstanging their ability to have their CPAs and tax attorneys use the current tax code to pay even less) stimulates the economy and provides jobs. Well, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts have been in effect for nearly a decade, but where are the AMERICAN jobs? Answer – moved to other countries, while the financial gap between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of us grows exponentially. 

          Personally, i believe that the President has given up too much to the Congressional GOP and gotten far too little in return. That is where our “Making Work Pay tax credit has gone.  

          1. I see its blame the other party. So who has the power? The Senate and the President are both Democratic. They hold 2/3rds of the process. I think you are saying we have a weak ineffectual President if he can’t get he important  things he wants. The guy in the Oval office takes responsibility. At least that was the way it is in every other Presidency.

          2. I’m only asking because I’m genuinely curious….. What other
            presidency has taken responsibility for any of their actions, or lack of? 

        2. Wrong again, Batman. Did you know that all tax bills, whether repeals, reductions or increases, must start in the US House of Representatives? Check the Constitution. So far, out of 3 of your replies I have read, you have a gross misunderstanding of how government works in all 3. I was wondering where Republicans got their votes. Now I know. By trolling on the bottom of the dim lightbulb barrel.

          1. So tell me, oh bright one. Who put forward the “BUSH” TAX CUT you seem so intent on repealing. Obviously only Republican Presidents control tax bills, Democratic Presidents don’t, Is that what you are saying? I can see the dim light and your bulb isn’t so bright.

          2. Dear, dear, don’t get hostile. Do a little more reading and less posturing and you might increase the wattage of your lamp.
            Every money bill HAS to start in the US House. This means that the president usually gets one of his allies in the House to introduce the bill. Have you never taken notice? I guess if you have Fox to feed you, it is not necessary to think for yourself, is it?

            Part of the reason sane people want to repeal the Bush era tax cuts is that they added 1.8 trillion dollars to the deficit during the Bush years, and 620 billion more during the past 2 years. They were touted by the Republicans as one way to make hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Obviously that has not happened, and maybe they are a luxury we can’t afford.

            Most of the benefits went to the very rich, but people like you who readily drink the drops of knowledge that drip off the right-wing tongues insist that we keep them. Maybe if we just give the very rich one more tax break, then we will all be rich like them, or so your logic goes. Read more, dearie, a lot more.

    3. And that the lying Repubs claim people are not paying taxes, when in fact they are through withholding. Until they file their return, the GOVERNMENT has their mits on that money, earning interest every day. When they issue a refund, it is only on the withholding, not the interest which should rightly be theirs, so no matter how you look at it with your trickle-down eyes, THEY ARE PAYING TAXES. Lying bunch of thugs.

      1. don’t forget all the otehr taxes and government “fees” that those who do not file still pay.  Usually its a much huigehr percentage of their income at the end of the day.

    4. Voodoo math, people lots of people who pay no taxes  anyway, 
      or  less than cost for their family to go  movie, 
      “are removed from the tax rolls” …. whoopie pies… 
      while the wealthy save thousand per year, 
      and the wealthier you are the more you save… 
      but it not a cheesy Tax Cut for the wealthy, 
      WHY … besides whose propaganda ?

  5. Am I missing something here? Paulie cries that there is a $220M shortfall, and now his party wants to eliminate a major source of funding. They need to get on the same page. Or maybe the republicans don’t believe LiePage any more than the rest us.

    1. “Am I missing something here?”

      Conservative math, may-be. 
      I don’t get it either.
      It must be a faith based thing, what happens… the compounding of errors … where conservative politics meets, their dumbed down anti- science attitudes,
      religion and old money . 

      But  aren’t these people paying ANY attention at all ? 
      How well did the Bush Tax Cut work out for the the economy ? 
      There is a record , now. 

      Isn’t doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results
      the very definition of insanity ?

      1. About the same as the Stimulus Spending. George Bush was not a financial conservative. Neither was his father. If taxes are cut then spending must be cut to keep a balance in spending and revenues coming into finance that spending. I own a business. I wouldnt lower my prices unless I knew I could still cover the bills with even while making less revenue. Bush did not take this into account. He decided to lower peoples taxes and make up the loss in revenue by borrowing. Very foolish.

        1. So why isn’t doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results 

          the very definition of insanity ?

          1. When did we last NOT HAVE  “very large federal deficit “.

            That would be at the end of Clinton’s terms… and the being of whose ?

            How was the economy at the end of the terms of the guy who
            cut taxes for the wealthy ?

            We have NOT really recovered from that yet, have we ?

        2. Congress bears some accountabiliy in all that Bush 2 did. They rolled over and played dead to everything Bush/Cheney demanded in fear of being un-patriotic in out time of need following 9/11. There is a lot of blame to go around for our financial troubles.

          Added to all this was the fact that unemployment went up during a time of war for the first time in my memory.

      2. Although i’m atheist, i’d like to point out that the President may  be apt to adopt a “faith based” thing. 

         You know, because he BELIEVES IN GOD. 

        Do you believe that a Muslim should be allowed to practice  their faith without harassment?  Why not afford the same courtesy to those of the Christian faith?

         Your not better then them , I hope you realize that. Of course you’ll deny it but it’s true. You think your superior to those of faith. And it’s even worse if you believe in God. Kinda biblical. Something about Judas denying the believers.

         I get the comebacks. I really do. But to throw out MEAN spirited comments unsolicited?   Makes you appear small

          Was someone talking about religion? Did I miss that somewhere?

        1. “Was someone talking about religion? Did I miss that somewhere?”

          I think it is you that is making it an issue here, actually.
          Why have you ?

          “Your (sic) not better then them”

          I know I am no better than you in how I address people and their beliefs or make presumptions upon them. 

          So Commonsense, in America do YOU believe that a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew a Hindi, a Pastafari or any person of any faith  should be allowed to practice  their faith, or none at all, without constant harassment, still ?  

          I do.

          So why do you think I do not afford the same courtesy, or its opposite,
          to those of the Christian faith as to I do to anyone else, and exactly like I’m doing with you, when I believe, with all of my humble faith, that they are fundamentally wrong ?  

          But more importantly, why should I expect that conservative “christian”
          do not to understand Jesus’ Greatest Commandment ,  so should not
          … no, do not… expected be treated just as they treated liberals Christians when they not only presume to speak for all Christians, as if they, alone, own it, as if they, alone, know God’s Will , but then and  then mix it with our politics, in their attempts to hasten Armageddon, by first destroying the current government,
          and the moderate middle class, from within, then replacing it with a theocracy ? 

          The conservative “christian’ political movement needs to respect those that God did not gift with their truly amazing grace of faith with the same respect that they demand of others, for starters. 

          Then separate Church and State, in their politics if they expect to use that premise when it suits their needs. 

          Failing that, are you suggesting it is not both my political right and moral duty to confront them with the truth and the un-Christian nature of their own
          hypocrisy ? 
          Why not ? 

          Here are the convert roots and the biggest growing influence on the conservative “christian” political movement in America;

           http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm 

          They are surprising similar to the objectives of the Taliban, aren’t they ?

          Playing with the tax structure, to destroy the moderated middle class,
          and moving all the money, so power, to the top is classic pre-revolutionary theory.

          It is not only right but timely that there be a backlash against these un-American and unholy principles. 

          In fact, if it so happens that I’m bringing these influences on religion and politics in America to anyone’s attention for the first time,
          consider the possibly, please, that my intentions are that  goodly Christians
          are informed enough to defend their faith, and that all other Americans,
          like you Commonsenseaintsocommon,  are prepared to defend YOUR
          freedom and liberty to not practice any religion, too, from those
          that would take them from you.

          Thank you for asking.

          1. Thank you. 

            I can only hope that people learn more about  “the main schools of Dominionism: 

            >Christian Reconstructionists, who believe biblical law, including stoning as punishment for adultery and other transgressions, should replace secular law; 

            > and the New Apostolic Reformation, which advocates for Christians to “reclaim the seven mountains of culture”: government, religion, media, family, business, education, and arts and entertainment.

            “http://www.ethicsdaily.com/five-facts-about-dominionism-cms-18467-printer 

            …. that they search the terms: 
            Dominionism, 
            Christian Reconstructionists   and 
            New Apostolic Reformation to learn what part these mostly convert political movements play in influencing American politics and religion.

            … and that everyone actively decides for themselves if you support them, unwittingly, or otherwise. 

            And then, as an American, as a Christian, and/or as a moral human being you should

            …. or if perhaps you should stand against their increasing power and influence …. simply by shining the light of truth, justice and the American way upon them. 

            How much room is there for well organized but hidden covert agendas 
            in American Democracy ?

          2.  To answer your question, YES I do believe ALL FAITHS should be allowed to practice whatever religion they chose. It ones not bother me ONE IOTA. Now if someone is directly in my face, that’s a different story. then it becomes about personal space and has nothing to do with religion.

             Perhaps your foolish enough to pose a question that when approached on it  made you look bad but  I”M NOT PLAYING PARTISAN GAMES.

             I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished or why 5 people agreed with you. I have no qualm with religion that’s MY POINT. IF I, as an atheist don’t have an issue, Who are you, someone that shares what some consider a naive belief, to  take shots with no provocation at others that BELIEVE the same thing?

             I’m not against religion, honestly at times I envy the direction it appears to give many.  The whole bible stuff kinda bothers me but frankly, there aren’t that many people of faith that completely deny the possibly that the earth is millions of years old. Not sure how one compartmentalizes that but…. to each his own. Long as they’re good people I really don’t care.

             Back to the point. How dare you attempt to turn this around. Your a person of faith that once again, without provocation  decided to make a VERY general statement about how an entire party makes policy based on religion.  Sarcasm to some, snotty condescending nonsense to others.

          3. Nice.
            Your canned political scree … attack one of how many sources in that link ,  first.

            Then you remembered you were telling me how to be more like you , 
            so deemed to answer my questions … sort of : 

            > “Your a person of faith… ”   
            Am I ?

             > ” How dare you attempt to turn this around ”
            It is just your political contentions. 
            Got a problem with them if they are applied to you, too ? 

            >” I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished or why 5 people agreed with you.” … 

            If it … (your politics) … can be turned round on you
            …. AND  if  a number people affirm it,  
            you can figure out what that means … or not. 
            Can’t you ?

            Rotflol.

            So back to my point… thanks for asking,  again, my oh so very liberal friend.  

            & good day to you, sir.

          4.  You do realize that continuing to respond with nothing more then one sides condescending  comebacks with no substance just reinforces the FACT that you feel superior to those that disagree with you. The heck of it is. Other then my lack of complete blind faith without independent thought to ANY party I get the impression we are on the same side on most issues. To bad your over inflated EGO won’t let that sink in. 

             A yup, Maddow was in the article and it then loses ALL CREDIBILITY or even interest to me. The same is also said when I think of Beck or Limbaugh. can you say you have the same insight to grasp that all THREE are full of baloney? NO because your actually that S-T=U-P-I-D. and yet you have pathetic grasping  silly sense of superiority. I won’t respond again. You say the same and then I end up doing the same, it doesn’t make any sense to bother continuing this dialogue. 

             All I ask is that you think for yourself.

             This back and forth started when I called you an attacking religion with no reason.  
             Why can’t you just say, “Maybe he’s right, they do annoy me but why feed onto it. If someone makes a comment I will respond but why aimlessly call people names?”

             But your to “ABOVE IT ALL ” to do that aren’t you.

          5. “You do realize that continuing to respond with nothing more then one sides condescending  comebacks with no substance just reinforces the FACT that you feel superior to those that disagree with you.” 

            Okay, so stop it. 

            “A yup, Maddow was in the article and it then loses ALL CREDIBILITY or even interest to me.”

            Regardless of all the evidence, to the contrary like you going on so about it so ?  

            “The heck of it is. Other then my lack of complete blind faith without independent thought to ANY party I get the impression we are on the same side on most issues. To bad your over inflated EGO won’t let that sink in. ”

            Or have become obsessed with me ?
            Are you seeking some kind of affirmation, from me ?  
            It is not healthy for you, so stop that, too. 

            “Why can’t you just say, “Maybe he’s right, they do annoy me but why feed onto it …”

            When it is true, and what I think, it’s okay by me.

            “… If someone makes a comment I will respond but why aimlessly call people names?”

            You are the same person who said :
             ” I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished or why 5 people agreed with you.”
            … and then ,” All I ask is that you think for yourself. ”
            right ?  ( Never mind your opinions on my ego )

            I do think for myself, why don’t you get it ?
            Others do, as you pointed out.

            If you don’t get it, I don’t feel I own you an explanation. 
            … and mostly likely can’t give you one you’ll accept given how particular you are about the source, but not the content of internet references.  

            Although, I do wonder who Maddow is,  now. 

            … Oh, she is talking head on TV.
            That explains why I don’t know her.
            So, which side is she on ?

            But I’m sorry that you are so offended by the

            Theocracy Watch
            http://www.theocracywatch.org/
            5 Sep 2008 – theocracywatch.org is a non-proft public information group committed to exposing the rise of the radical religious right as a political force in the …

            http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm

            Get over it, yourself.
            B’ bye.

          6.  Your kidding right????? Rachel Maddow???? You honestly think that anything with Maddow”s name anywhere on it can have any credibility????? She and Schultz are the DNC version of Beck and Limbaugh. If you take anything these people say as gospel without checking facts you are nothing more then sheep..

             here’s what turns me off, Ed Schultz, several months ago went off on the Republican party. “Ohh they’re horrible people. They want to take 6 hundred million out of FEMA funding. The RNC doesn’t care about those in crisis” 

            I DID THE RESEARCH. 6 hundred million turned out to be THREE PERCENT OF FEMA FUNDING.  REALLY, YOU THINK THAT 3 PERCENT IS THE END OF THE WORLD DO YA??? ACCORDING TO ED IT WAS. And people like you BELIEVE the tripe these people sayTHINK FOR YOURSELVES.

            Another annoying example. Is it really okay that a sixteen year old girl got a banner with a religious statement on it removed after TWENTY YEARS because she is Atheist and it offended her???????

             I’m AtheistI DON’T CARE IF THE BANNER IS THERE. What is going on with this country?
             

            Get your heads outta there. Left, right, it doesn’t matter. Just assume they’re all lying and LOOK IT UP. You have4 a computer, IT’S RIGHT THERE. Put google to use for something besides the  kitten video or COOL GUY extreme trashcan surfing. 

            I would bet all of the money in the world that I am much more liberal on social issue then you. I don’t care for the RNC’s stance on social issue but the fact is we need people who grasp that one plus one equal 2 and no matter how hard you try we can’t keep paying everyone for anything. I’m all about the homeless and I consider GREEN initiatives to be of secondary concern when we have millions without a home. And yet the so called “Bleeding hearts” seem to focus more on flushing our money down the toilet then using it to do good that could be instantly visible.

             I like President Obama, seems like a nice guy.  No doubt his heart is true. His policy and leadership are a joke.

            I have no idea if any of the Candidates  can turn things around. I doubt it. But i’d rather see someone taking the deficit and how it will affect our country seriously. We don’t have that now. 

    2. This article is discussing the State of Oklahoma and the Governor that States tax proposals. Maine and the tax proposals of LePage are not discussed in this article. I have not heard LePage advocate for abolishing income tax in Maine. Have you?

      1. Oh yes he has !!!!! He is almost rabid about eliminating the State Income Tax on all retiree’s pension’s and retirement’s. Get him started about it at one of his press conference’s and watch him just go !

        1. I think that is splitting hairs a bit. It is true that he has spoken about eliminating state income tax for certain groups of people and lowering it. However I dont think he has ever said he wants to do away with it 100%.

          1. No sir. He is frequent and rabid in his being quoted as eliminating the income tax on ANY retiree’s pension or retirement. And any time he get’s misquoted he’s on the news that night making sure that he is quoted properly. LePage wants the income tax on retiree’s retireents and pensions ELIMINATED. The only problem he has is where does he come up with the $93 million dollars that this is gonna cost ?. Given the current mood in Augusta, I for one am not seeing it on the horizon any time soon, if at all. 

      2. I read the article and I believe Maine was mentioned. Oklahoma is probably just a dip your toe in the water state to see if it’s too hot or cold. If they succeed the rest will jump on the band wagon before they are thrown out of office.

    3. How about we stop calling it a short fall, and call it what it really is, over spending.  The problem with Augusta and Washington is not that we don’t have enough tax money, it is that they refuse to stop writing checks when the money runs out.  I can’t go to the grocery store and write a check if there is no more money in my account, so why should the government.

      1. Are you sure about your shortfall comment. Mr LePage said in his Saturday radio address that it was a revenue shortfall. 

  6. “”” But it’s not clear how all those states would make up for the lost
    revenue, and Rueben said she’s not aware of any state in modern history
    that has eliminated an income tax.”””

    “””A similar debate is unfolding in Oklahoma, where the plan calls for
    reducing the income tax from 5.25 percent to 4.75 percent by eliminating
    the personal exemption for every household member, including children,
    as well as the child tax credit and earned income tax credit.

    An analysis by the Oklahoma Policy Institute shows those steps would
    raise taxes for 55 percent of Oklahomans, mostly low-income families and
    those with children.

    “We have grave doubts about this proposal,” said David Blatt,
    director of the institute. “We see stumbling blocks in every direction.
    You either decimate state services or shift the burden onto those that
    can least afford it.””””

    First let me say i hat it when im right.. I said this all along.. Eliminating these taxes are for the ones that have to pay taxes every year not for the ones that receive a check..  By removing these then the ones that receive will be paying.. Maybe not in an income tax but in other type of tax..  These republicans have been using our tax dollars to get richer and richer and they are making us poorer and poorer and they are relentless and will not stop till we no longer exist..

      1. Are there people in America cynical enough to want to do that 
        … people who not only know that: 

        “An analysis by the Oklahoma Policy Institute shows those steps would raise taxes for 55 percent of Oklahomans, mostly low-income families and those with children.” 

        … but who are “embolden” into elimination of the income tax, anyway,  
        BECAUSE  that so also creates the conditions in which bloody revolutions occur 
        and governments topple ?

    1. Wouldn’t it be just terrible for “everyone” to pay at least something, especially those with children, who use the majority of the services in the first place. The earned income tax credit is the biggest redistribution of wealth farce that there has ever been. Why should anyone get back more of a tax refund than was even withheld in the first place, if any was even withheld?
      It would be a terrible thing for everyone to be more responsible. Why not just leech off those people who prepared for their future. Why not just keep having more children than you can afford in the first place, fully intending that the rest of us will help you support them?  

      1. All they have to do is raise the minimum wage so that everyone would earn enough to “pay something”. As it stands, 50% of America is now retired, unemployed, under employed, or disabled. We can’t change the retirees or the disabled. What does that leave that we can change? Wages and jobs. Too bad the GOP wants to lower wages even more and send even more jobs to China. Think about that next time you vote.

        1. Since the problem is under qualified workers we should raise minimum wage?
          Didn’t everyone get a free high school education? Didn’t everyone have the opportunity to get a job and earn their way though college?
          How much should we pay someone who didn’t have the responsibility to plan for their own future? If someone spent their education years stoned or knocked up, we should pay them an inflated wage? How would that help the economy if nobody could afford to buy products because of the inflated wages? Do you think the the business owner is just going to absorb the extra cost or pass it on to the consumer?

          1. You say the reason people are not working is that they are under qualified? I say it is because there are no jobs, period. We sent them all to China. There are now people asking you if you want paper or plastic who have college degrees. How much should we pay someone? Easy. Enough so they can support themselves without yours and my help. We pay billions in tax dollars every year so people like the Waltons can stack up $93 billion while paying their employees HALF the federal poverty level, or as I like to call them, “public assistance” wages. Regardless of how you or I feel about how deserving these people are or what put them in this situation, if their employers do not pay them enough to survive on their own, we have to make up the difference as tax payers. This amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. In 1961 JFK passed a bill that raised the minimum wage to $1.50 an hour. If the minimum wage was keeping pace with inflation, like all wages should, it should be around $15 an hour now, not the current $7.50. I own a small business and depressed wages affect me as well as the person working for them. I depend on these people to buy my product. If their wages are not keeping pace with inflation, I can not charge more for my product, to keep pace with inflation myself. We would all do much better here in the local economy if the money was to end up in the paychecks of local employees as opposed to a bank in Arkansas or Wall Street. Depressed wages hurt everyone but the top 1%, period.

  7. I wonder how the Conservatives plan to pay the bills ? Do they want a total collapse of the US. Government ? Our infrastructure is crumbling, we can’t afford to pay our teachers, we can’t afford afford to pay our public servants. And it is all because the wealthy don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes? 

     According to the “Tea Baggers” (who, by the way are totally sponsered by the billionaire Koch Brothers)  the wealthy need a free ride.  No matter at what cost for our Nation.

    1. I wonder how the Conservatives plan to pay the bills ? Do they want a total collapse of the US. Government ?
      YES… the issue is the government, it is too big and now owes more that the GDP of the country.  Last time I checked owing more than you make is a bad thing.  “It is how we have always done it”  philosophy is what has created this and to change that we need to get rid of the status quo.

      1. Federal revenues are at their lowest point as a percentage of the GDP. since the civil war. I am not sure that “Rush Limbaugh is telling you guys the whole truth !

    2. Conservativess…. ”
      Do they want a total collapse of the US. Government ?” 

      Some do. 

      “More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. 
      Under God’s covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are “in submission” to him. In turn, the husband “submits” to Jesus and to God’s laws as detailed in the Old Testament. 

      The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. 

      Civil government exists to implement God’s laws. 
      All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called “theonomy.”

      http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html 

      1. So I guess Conservatives want a Theocracy (like the government of Iran) as opposed to a Democracy which is what we our Constitution guarentees us here in the USA.

        1. The Theocrats do.
          That is true. 

          They differ a bit from the ayatollahs in that their “Law” is Bible based, not Sharia . 

          They are covert, conservative in their nature and their approach, and have no issue with using other unwitting conservative to promote their covert agenda.  

          “One post-millenial faction in Dominon theology, the Reconstructionists, believe the Christ will return only after Christians have maintained theocratic hegemony for 1,000 years. Post-millenial believers think that we are in the “end-time tribulations” and only the assumption of power by true believers will end the tribulations. There is a growing rapproachment between various post-millenial sects and the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement. ”

          http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.publicgood.org/reports/nullify.htm 

          Pat Robertson (b. 1930)
          Anti-American theocrat; Founder of the Christian Coalition (the Muthah of all Radical Religious Right groups) which shamelessly (and illegally) uses its so-called nonpartisan voter guides to steer religious voters toward Republican candidates; arguably the most powerful voice urging the replacement of the United States Constitution (governed by ‘We, the People’) with an Evangelical Christian theocracy

          ” If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody…. This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God’s people will emerge victorious.”
          — Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson’s Perspective Oct-Nov 1992 

          I the name of Christ ( ? ), “Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody” …. in America ?

          http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/revpat.htm

          1. I think I would like to keep the USA as a democracy. Despite being very spiritual, I don’t want to push my beliefs on anyone else. Nor would I like their beliefs being pushed on me. Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion ! No matter what that religion might be.

          2. “I think I would like to keep the USA as a democracy. ”

            I would as well, naturally. I hope that is clear. 

            How this began, here, is of no import.

            But I’m just curious about if others are aware of the fact that there are powerful, organized people who do want to “stave the beast” of our
            “too secular” Constitutional  government unto its very death ?  

            They wish to shrink the US Government to the point that it could be drown in a bathtub, then do so. 

            Awareness of those people organizing its destruction and of their methods and means, is the beginning of the US Constitution’s 
            defense and that of American Christianity as most view it, too.  

            The most ironic thing is that I understand why good decent conservative Christians do not  believe THEIR church is part of this. 
            Besides that it is quite unbelievable, they are right.
            Their church is not part of it, directly.  

            If they do not know the plan, they are not among the New Prophets and Apostles of the: 

            New Apostolic Reformation 
            http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/newapostolic.html

            … and shall not fair any better than any other “infidels”, demons or heathens, like me in the NAR more “christian” Superpower. 

            Never mind connecting how some people being “empowered” to end the income tax,  to “stave the beast” is not a good idea …
              
            … when people speak of America being founded as a “christian nation”
            or needing to  become a more “christian” nation, many decent people saying those things have no idea that they are being manipulated into supporting the destruction of America AND their own freedom of religion, as well.

            So it goes.

          3. Anyone who thinks that the USA. was founded as a “christian nation ” have already been “manipulated” ! Poor Sarah !

          4. … ” have already been “manipulated” !  

            Exactly, but do they understand that, by whom,  and most importantly towards what ends ? 

            And then, are the people who think you can both cut taxes and balance the budget any less so ?

  8.  All I see is another partisan boogeyman.

     When these issues are brought up people need to ask, “Is this something that is going to happen?” 

      If the answer is no, then move on to the next topic, Probably won’t be any better but learn to discriminate.

      What’s next on the list? 
     “Look out the Republican party is trying to overturn Roe v Wade.”

     Oh wait, if you believed the first article then you’re probably worried that SOMEHOW the RNC IS going to overturn that too. Right? lmao

     We need jobs, we need to help the less fortunate.
    We don’t need to make everything green THIS WEEK(continue working on the technology but the government should be darn limited in it’s participation)
    We don’t need to go back to the moon this week either.
    We don’t need any more troops going anywhere
    And, we don’t need people breaking the same rules, taking advantage of the same tax codes, telling us how much better they are then the other guy.

     We’re ALL socially liberal with a nod to degrees. Some are willing to help those in need whether they understand their problems or not. Others, they’ll help anybody but may not be so sympathetic if your illness isn’t obvious to them. That doesn’t make them  evil or bad people it makes them IGNORANT.  Unfortunately, some learn, most don’t.

     The question is how in the heck do we get competent people in Washington. 

     If they aren’t  corrupt when they get there, they get with the program real quick.

  9. What I’d like to see is some of this supposed currently improving revenue go toward these bond’s that LePage keeps telling us need to be paid off. Fine, do it publicly and then maybe, just maybe, some of his other idea’s might actually be taken seriously. But until then his idea’s, among them the elimination of the State Income Tax on retiree’s earning’s, are gonna be seen as another campaign slogan tossed out to see what it’s gonna take to fool the electorate. And given the current political hoop-la that we are all going to be subjected to between now and Nov 12, the electorate is getting a BIG education, which in some cases can be a dangerous thing if it leads to the candidate’s position being subjected to objective testing. Oop’s, did I just have a moment of reality and common sense ? Hope so ! Anyone else ?

  10. The TeaPublicans want to dismantle federal, state, and local government and regulations so that they can rob the country blind with impunity. If there’s no law on the books to be broken, then they can do whatever they want without fear of reprisals. Thugs, bullies, or at best HYPOCRITES!

      1. > 1) The TeaPublicans want to dismantle federal, state, and local government and regulations so that they can rob the country blind with impunity. If there’s no law on the books to be broken, then they can do whatever they want without fear of reprisals. Thugs, bullies, or at best HYPOCRITES!

        >2) What?. Where did that thought come from?

        It is logical conclusion after a close look at the TEA Party’s astro-turfed  funding and an analysis of who ultimately benefits the most from their agenda. 

        What kind of American does not understand that ?

  11. Here we go again. Politicians trying to push something through to pad their resume on being tough on taxes. When this push fails, as it probably will for practical reasons, they will use it as a campaign blurb against their opponents the next time they run for office. Future quote, “I tried to do away with your income tax, but the opposition blocked it.”

  12. Sounds like the  “trickle down” cult.  Too bad it has never worked like they say it does.  Everyone understands that the economy will not improve until consumer demand increases.  The “trickle down” believers want to stimulate demand by reducing taxes.  The rub comes in here because those that benefit the most from the reduced taxes prefer to save rather than spend and consume.  After all, they mostly got their wealth by being fiscally “prudent”.  The “Tax and Spend” believers want to stimulate demand by taking money from the trickle downers and use it to invest in more speculative or longer term investments “to promote the general Welfare.”

    Thinking that these alternatives are mutually exclusive is delusional.  Both sides have a bit of truth to them.  Dropping taxes does free up cash, but there is nothing to encourage the investment in riskier or long term (generations long) projects that lead to more jobs.  One method might be to expand deductions for such individual investments which “promote the general Welfare.”  Economists and tax experts could probably come up with many more ways.  Too bad our leaders, and our citizens,  are too busy listening to demagogues who look to the past to assign blame rather than to the future to resolve the problems.

    1. You wrote:  “One method might be to expand deductions for such individual investments which “promote the general Welfare…”

      As you are no doubt aware, this is the reason unearned income (money from stock dividends etc.) is taxed at about 1/2 the rate wages are. The result has been a tax system that encourages all kinds of gimmicks to avoid taxes, the so-called shelters.

      The Right wing will tell you that taxing dividends at 15% encourages the “job creators” to create jobs.

       Think of it. If you go out and make $100,000 digging a ditch you might pay 28,000 of it in taxes. But if you sell stock and make 100,000, then you may only pay 15,000 in taxes. The richer person selling the stock creates nothing, improves nothing and hires nobody, but his taxes are 1/2 the working man’s.

      Wanting to even the taxes out does not make me jealous, as Republicans want to tell you. All I want is for those who sit on their bums and collect millions of dollars to pay the same taxes I would making the same money.

  13. What a novel idea! Take the governments ability to directly tax people’s income away. Was the 16th amendment ever properly ratified?

  14. This article made reference to Maine.  According to the Maine income tax schedules, this is the change from 2011 to 2012.  $40,000 taxable income, filing jointly – in 2012 the tax is $2036.50, in 2011 it was $2053.50.  The reduced income tax was $17.  $20,000 taxable income, filing jointly – in 2012 the tax is $645, in 2011 it was $651.50,  $6.50 reduction.  Then just for fun (it doesn’t come near applying to me), I checked the taxes at $200,000.  In 2012 – $15,626.50, in 2011 – $15,653.50.  Reduction in income tax – $27. 

    Maybe it’s just me, but this reduction in taxes seems – piddly?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *