Progressive Group Pledges to Dump the Pledge

This is a great development (4.00 / 1)

And not because I want an income tax tomorrow. I'm a bit ambivalent, I know from living other places that the income tax doesn't really hold down the property tax as much as you'd think...but it's nonsensical to take a tax mechanism off the table outright.

Let me put it this way. It's clearer with sales tax, because I think a sales tax is a horribly regressive tax. I don't support it. But I think a situation where we make candidates take pledges to not even discuss the possible benefits of a sales tax is -- well, it's just infantile.

There are some things I'd like to see pledges for -- like national pledges that we will not torture prisoners of war. Moral absolutes.

Tax policy, though, is not religion. I want to know where my guy stands, but i do want him or her to have the flexibility to talk about it as an option.

I don't know if that makes sense, looking at it now it sounds Kerry-ish. But it's true.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:01:35 PM CST

Interesting... (0.00 / 0)

I would wonder if there are those to whom taxes are just as evil.

Ie, they consider taxes as evil as you consider torture.

Of course, hating taxes is based out of greed, and hating torture is based out of mercy...

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:23:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I refer you to (4.00 / 1)

a comment down thread for a most certain answer to your question.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:08:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It isn't that the tradition... (0.00 / 0)

...is too strong. It's that Mark Fernald -- the first name to appear in the article -- got soundly beaten four years ago making the case for a broad-based tax.

It seems a little odd to have this coming from a church coalition. Do they view it as a matter of NH underfunding things, meaning they believe we need higher net taxes? Or do they believe we are hurting vulnerable people by relying so heavily on the property tax? I assume the former; if so, they should come right out and say so.

My assumption is that New Hampshire will finally deal with what Doug Hall calls the "structural deficit" -- expenses inherently rising faster than receipts -- only when a Dem Governor gets a third term with no pledge, and the legislature sends a tax bill s/he didn't promote.

(Andy Peterson, Dante Scala, and Doug Hall are all candidates for a TPM Cafe sort of 'Visiting Political Celebrity' spot.)

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:05:15 PM CST

Dump the pledge (4.00 / 3)

I have lived in NH for just over 2 years. I lived in high tax California for more than 30 years. I agree with the original premise of the group and with the comments so far.

The only caveat I would ask for is to make sure the burden is spread fairly - which is not the same as evenly. The fact is that the well-to-do should pay higher taxes simply because the effect is smaller to negligible for them than for moderate and low income folks.

There are several bogus arguments that "support" the pledge. One of them is that no tax NH has such a good economy because of low taxes. Yet, if one looks to other states and at other nations that tax much higher than here, one sees thriving economies. There is no corelation between low taxes and successful economy.

Compared to other states, NH has a very poor infrastructure. Roads, bridges, dams utility lines, etc. all cost money to erect and maintain. Dams that should have been removed 40 years ago burst in the Fall of '05 and spring of '06. That cost a heck of a lot of folks - most of them not wealthy - a lot of money and severely disrupted lives.

The continuous freeze/thaw cycles of last winter caused about 7 times the normal yearly damage to bridges, roads and highways according to some state estimates. That means the budget for the next 7 years is already being ear-marked for last year's events. Where will we get the money to repair the damage that will occur in each of the next 7 years?

We have to get this conversation started.

Warndog 

---

by: warndog @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:16:53 PM CST

Great comments (0.00 / 0)

And good to have you here...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:44:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The roads and (I think) bridges (4.00 / 2)

are paid for by the gas tax, which the state Constitution (!!) limits to road building (not light rail transport to Massachusetts, for example, which the state DOT wanted to build).

I think our infrastructure problems lie more in schools and jails... To the extent they are in the road / bridge area, it may be more a problem of poor execution rather than underfunding.

Welcome!

---

by: elwood @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:52:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What company or board of directors (4.00 / 1)

would hire a CEO that said. "I will absolutely not look at this potential revenue stream" It would be called a breech of their fiduciary duty, there would be shareholder lawsuits.

Now, I'm not saying gov should operate as a corp. But I think it is an interesting perspective, sort of like those upside down maps.

Its a good effort, I look forward to hearing more about it.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 20:52:01 PM CST

Thoughts on NH tax policy (0.00 / 0)

1. The conventional wisdom right now seems to be that the Democrats' victory in November was based on taking a sales or income tax off the table. With that issue neutralized, the thinking holds, the GOP had nothing to offer voters.

2. I would be very interested in a discussion of the politics behind the late-nineties passage of income tax bill by the GOP-controlled House and Senate. Was it gamesmanship? And given those votes how did the GOP continue to sell itself as the anti-tax party?

3. I'm particularly interested in the side-effects of taxes. High property taxes tend to drive population to lower-tax outlying towns, for example. One theory I have is that a state with an income tax will spend more effort trying to attract high-paying jobs, which fill its coffers. But I've never seen (or looked for) data to back that up.
   

---

by: elwood @ Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 08:30:26 AM CST

Quick comment (0.00 / 0)

One side effect:

Heard two guys in NHPR the other day saying that the NH Business Tax is high compared to neighboring states, and the reliance on that tax keeps the small businesses that employ people out.

In other words, as I heard it, the small business "advantage" of the tax system here is really limited to Schedule C Sole Proprietorships with no property. Businesses that actually have assets and hire people have no tax advantage.

I'd like to track that down, but if anybody else could, that would be great. I know precious little about how the biz tax system works here. I think it would make a great diary to have a biz tax primer.

Any business people out there?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 09:16:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

GSFTC has a dubious mission (0.00 / 0)

First, the Democrats ran on a 'no new tax' platform and not much else.

Now they are planning all sorts of ways to get the camel's nose under the tent and why not? They are also plotting to institute more government controls and expanded programs that will all cost money.

Everyone knows by looking at Vermont and Conn that sales/income taxes do LITTLE to help the economy of state, its poor, or to lower property taxes. It's just an EXTRA tax. Conn even has gambling casinos which are taxed heavily.

Not to mention the fact the the Democrats, by running on a no-tax platform but now pulling stunts like this, have plain and simple LIED. But then again, what did we expect?

Some Democrats even took the time-honored and very morally upstanding pledge not to steal any more money from the citizens with a  broad-based tax.

They knew they would get nowhere otherwise.

Please, in the future, if you want people like me to pay more money 'just because I have it and you want it', don't lie about your redistributionist schemes. It's OK to say it.

It's just NOT OK to LIE about it.

GSFTC is dead in the water...

---

by: _NH @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 23:58:33 PM CST

OH and by the way... (0.00 / 0)

Passing a warrant article in the towns is not going to stop candidates from taking the Pledge...that is unless you think that you can outright outlaw it, which would be curtailment of freedom of speech.

Just try it.

---

by: _NH @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 00:01:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Republican viewpoint s welcome here (4.00 / 2)

in honest discussion.

Note that GSFTC is NOT a partisan group, so it is NOT a case of the Democratic Party changing its position. In fact, if the Party were about to do that, there would be no need to form an outside group.

And your belief that Dems ran on only the Pledge doesn't stand up in the light of day. Over the past two elections the Dems also ran against the corruption of Benson and Chandler, and for personal liberties including reproductive rights -- while the GOP promoted REAL ID, new restrictions on access to abortion, and bans on both civil unions and marriage equality.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:00:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Welcome to Blue Hampshire. (4.00 / 2)

Now expect to be challenged.  We don't do drive-bys here.

They are also plotting to institute more government controls and expanded programs that will all cost money.

Evidence, please? In the absence of it, this is baseless.

Not to mention the fact the the Democrats, by running on a no-tax platform but now pulling stunts like this, have plain and simple LIED. But then again, what did we expect?

I wasn't aware the the non-partisan GSFTC is run by the NH Democratic party.  Or are you simply lying here to fit your rhetoric?

very morally upstanding pledge

This is by far the most illogical (and really perverse, when you think about it) part of your comment.

If you want to be a free market radical, by all means, go for it.  The utterly failed policies of Reaganomics and Bush's tax cuts are out there for all to see. Please, by all means, ally yourself with economic Darwinism if that's what you truly believe.  You can enjoy watching generations of Americans in the future paying back the debt to China that W. racked up fighting two wars while giving the rich their tax cuts.

But to call it "morally upstanding" is a contradiction of the highest order.  Broadly speaking, morality and ethics are systems established in complete opposition to "survival of the fittest" and "every man for himself" ways of living. 

And if it's Christian morality to which you refer, I'm even more confused. Grover Norquist may have a beard, but he's no Jesus.  Just ask the people of New Orleans, the latest beneficiaries of free market, no-government radicalism.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 09:27:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

BTW: Laura Knoy's show today (4.00 / 1)

is about the Pledge. Live call-in, with GSFTC guests.

9:00 AM on NHPR, replayed this evening.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 07:56:36 AM CST