« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

250 clergymen can be wrong

By: Joe Cunningham (Diary)  |  March 18th, 2013 at 04:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the latest effort to make Jindal feel really bad about his tax swap proposal, 250 clergymen sent a letter to his office.

A handful of ministers delivered the letter to the governor’s office at the State Capitol Monday morning.

Jindal wants to eliminate the state’s personal income and corporate taxes in favor of increasing the state sales tax by 47 percent and taxing services such as hair cuts, cable television and other expenses.

The proposal will be debated in the legislative session that starts next month.

Jindal’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ministers’ concerns.

The ministers represent an array of faiths, including Baptist, Episcopal and Methodist.

Bishop Gregory Cooper said he feels comfortable reaching out to the governor because Jindal told legislators his proposal is not etched in stone.

Once again, this idea of the poor and middle class taking on the burden of the taxes in the new proposal is tossed out with no supporting evidence, other than rhetoric and some scary words,  like “regressive” and “47% tax increase.” But without actually explaining with facts, the entire argument can collapse. The letter itself can be tossed out at the clergy’s first argument:

First, we are concerned that Louisiana already has one of the most regressive tax systems in the nation, putting a disproportionately high burden on low and moderate income families. Currently, families earning minimum wage (less than $16,000 per year) pay 10.6% of their income in state and local taxes; the average Louisiana family pays 10.1% of its income in taxes; while the wealthiest Louisiana families (earning over $1 million per year) pay only 4.6% of their income in state and local taxes. That is unacceptable, as a starting point.

Let’s stop right here and think for a moment. Jindal’s plan is to get rid of income-based taxation, so are the clergymen arguing for or against the plan? It doesn’t make sense to open up your arguments against a proposal to get rid of the state’s income tax by pointing out the disparity between what the poor pay and what the rich pay, does it? If you read the paragraph, if looks like the exact argument you should make IN FAVOR of Jindal’s plan. Want the taxing of Louisiana citizens to be fair? Everyone pays the same rate in a form of taxes that doesn’t allow for breaks and exemptions. Stupendous.

Jindal’s plan is centered mostly around one thing: raising the sales tax by less than two cents per every dollar you spend. It widens what sales tax applies to and boosts cigarette tax by more than a dollar, but the bulk of the proposal currently focuses on that first part. Are you going to tell me that two more cents per dollar is going to break the bank? If that’s the case, rethink your personal budget.

 

——————-

See this post and others of mine here. Follow me on Twitter: @joec_esquire

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sengokunadeko14

    I 100% agree. Replacing the income tax with a sales tax is, in my humble opinion, the single best way to starve the beast. I know there are some conservatives out there who shiver at the idea of a new tax, but just take a look at the states that have a sales tax instead of an income tax (including my state, WA). It’s the single best way to end class warfare, as everyone is equal under a sales tax.

    Replacing the income tax with a sales tax nationally would also go a looong way towards fixing many of our fiscal problems.

    • Jim_Riggs

      I’d say that would depend on what you raise it to.

    • veritaseequitas

      I agree with a consumer based tax in place of income tax. That way everyone has to pay the tax. And, you can regulate your taxes by what you consume. If you buy a luxury item, the tax should be higher than say on a pair of jeans or a sweater.

      I would not tax food or medicine. And no national sales tax. The states should control the taxes. Why is it that tax money goes to the feds and then is doled back out to the states? It should be the other way around.
      The Lord only asks for 10%. The government should not get more than that. These pastors ought to know that.

      • timmcg

        I don’t trust the politicians.

        Before long, it will be 5% tax on jeans but if they are designer they are 10% and generic drugs don’t have a tax. Diet soda don’t have a tax but large sodas have a tax as does, ice cream but vegetables don’t unless they are in cans. Bandaids don’t have a tax, but antacid does.

        etc
        etc.
        etc

      • Dave_A

        @redstate-14c31b2ebc49eaf271d65ff4522eae4e:disqus :

        The tax money goes to the Feds & is spent on state projects, because the Founders specifically intended the national government to be able to levy it’s own taxes, lest it be beholden to coercion from state-level politicians…

        The WORST possible idea, is to make the US government dependent on payments from the states for funding.

        • theccur

          The FRAMERS never intended that the Federal Government tax THE PEOPLE THAT authority was left to the states.

      • theccur

        The states STUPIDLY passes the 16th Amendment authorizing Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results, thus permitting the Federal government to rob them (and their citizens) and use the money as foolishly as it chooses.

    • Dave_A

      Except that WA has all manner of nasty business-taxes in addition to the sales tax (Leasehold tax, anyone?)…. Yes, I live in WA too…

      The most ‘fair’ method of taxation, is the flat-percent income tax. Everyone gives up the same percentage of their time (% of annual pay) to finance the government, regardless of their income level…

      Sales tax unfairly rewards non-spenders & has many other pitfalls….

      • veritaseequitas

        You talk about the unfairness of rewarding non-spenders with a sales tax and that it has many other pitfalls….and yet you think it is fair to tax a low income earner at say 8% and then tax a high income earner or a mega income earner at 8% too? Now that is a truly AWFUL and UNFAIR idea Dave_A. Which all just points out the unfairness of taxes in general.

        Who gets to decide what is fair and just? The elected “leaders” or ruling political class in DC? Yeah, that’s proven to be a solid winner, since they are so self-serving and do not really have a clue about what life is like for the “ordinary people.”

        As for all the other nasty taxes you apparently pay in WA. Here in SC we pay the same sort of taxes…business, real property, personal property, school, etc., etc., etc. At least with those taxes you are seeing some result within your community. Not like federal taxation which goes into a big black hole for heaven knows what.

        • joshinca

          and yet you think it is fair to tax a low income earner at say 8% and then tax a high income earner or a mega income earner at 8% too? Now that is a truly AWFUL and UNFAIR idea

          Why?

          Someone making $10,000 pays $800 and someone making a million pays $80,000. What’s unfair about that?

          • veritaseequitas

            $800.00 on $10,000 is a lot.

          • 1ndianaphil

            $80,000 is NOT a lot? Try to come up with a fair amount after the Federal Govt has taken 40%. NOW the equation is $80,000 of the remaining $600,000 (if that fortunate to ONLY be taxed a total of $400,000 on one million). That amounts to over $13%. The person earning $10,000 would NOT be paying an additional 40% to the federal govt (and in fact might be eligible for money back).
            Oh – don’t forget that other people are also paying property taxes, city taxes, county taxes….

          • theccur

            Your point lacks merit. NO tax system is “fair” unless you CONFISCATE every dollar over an arbitrary amount. Unfortunately, even a moron soon realizes that rather than everyone being equally rich, they are all equally poor.

        • theccur
        • Dave_A

          Actually, it’s incredibly fair.

          8% of a low-income-earner’s annual pay equates to the monetary value of ’8% of his working time’. Same for 10%, or the more likely 15%-20% number if we want to be revenue neutral.

          What makes the flat-rate income tax perfectly fair, is that it takes the same portion of everyone’s working hours to pay for the government…

          It doesn’t matter if you are a billionare, or a minimum wage burger-flipper – you give up the same % of your working year, no matter what.

          As for ‘results’, believe it or not I see very little ‘results’ from the local taxes I pay… I see my state & federal tax dollars building the roads I commute to work on & manning JB Lewis-McChord… But most of the county tax I pay goes to fund stuff in the city of Olympia (a place I never go) – us ‘unincorporated Thurston County’ residents really don’t receive any local-government services, other than a hand extended for property-tax checks….

          But I would still rather tax everyone at the same %-of-income at the state level, than ‘soak’ business-owners & anyone who rents anything NOT a primary residence, so they raise prices & pass it on down….

      • capeconservative

        I would go even farther by suggesting a flat tax for EVERYONE! NO exceptions!

        I have worked for ‘non-profits’ and the definition is nothing more than a JOKE! All they do is rig the books to ensure no revenue is unmatched by expense. A prime example is our ‘call joe for oil’ scam whereby joe kennedy and his wife collected close to a million dollars as executives of a so-called non-profit while publicly dissing American corporations and praising ‘our good friend’ in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez!

      • theccur

        Governments INEVITABLY find more things to tax as they scramble for the money to do thing in their honor.

  • raginpatriot

    As Labor Union Report can confirm, unions (along with other Progressive-Collectivist organizations) like to use sometimes naive and gullible, sometimes complicit clergy as fronts for a different agenda (such as during a union organizing drive). This helps put a (false) overt sheen of legitimacy or morality to mask their actual covert ends. I suspect that there’s some (Soros funded or other) puppet-masters behind this clergy letter (perhaps the Soros-Obama “Organizing for America”).

    In fact when you look at the “LA Faith Community” web site linked from the letter, it has all the indicia of AstroTurf.

    • cynbel

      Take a quick look at some of the comments to that article. ROFL! I am from Louisiana, so I have permission to guffaw freely.

  • grumpyKoz

    I think the REAL issue here is simple.

    The clergy do not pay income tax. But if you hike the sales tax and get rid of the income tax, then they are no better than The Rest of Us. They will pay a larger value to sales tax while having the SAME protection against a non-existent income tax.

    Of course this plays into ALL tax-exempt entities, so you can expect to hear from them as well.

    • rcatheart

      Um, I agree with posted article here, but would like to note for the record that I am clergy, and I most certainly do pay income tax.

    • joshinca

      And they worry about a decline in contributions since those contributions are not longer tax deductible.

  • PowerToThePeople

    I love how idiots always try to show how “much” the poor pay in income tax when the reality is that even if they pay that amount, they get it and much more back at the end of the year. I would gladly pay 10.5 percent or even twice that amount if I could get it all back plus more at the end of the year. These idiots really need to stop with the BS.

    But, Jindal’s plan to hit smokers is as much BS as the idiot claims. The idea we should punish a segment of society just because they smoke is ludicrous. I do not smoke, can not stand the smell, but it does not matter as they should not carry a burden for everyone else just because right now smoking is not the cool thing. On that alone, we should oppose his plan until he relents that portion.

    • freemkts

      Cigarette taxes are not based on it not being cool. It’s because smokers get diseases like lung cancer and then expect the state to pay for them while they are dying. You want to smoke? Pay your taxes for when it starts to kill you! Besides higher cigarette taxes do get some people to quit and that’s good for all of us.

      I don’t live in LA but I love what Jindal is doing and find it disgraceful that he’s taking flak from other Republicans over this. It’s not even the Dems who are holding this up. The GOP runs that state. This should be put into law by week’s end. Just get it done!

      • streiff

        That is actually a bogus claim. Smokers present a much lower cost to the health care system than non smokers precisely because they die of diseases that tend to kill them at younger age and faster.

        That argument didn’t go over very well when the tobacco companies presented it to Congress.

        • freemkts

          How do you figure that? Poor people tend to smoke more than the rest of society. When they get sick, they’re on Medicaid and it’s the taxpayers who pay for these freeloaders. Getting someone to pay taxes on their 2 pack a day habit is not unreasonable IMO.

          • rogershru2

            You can argue about whether we should tax smoking to finance health care, because while they are alive they do in fact cost more per year to the health system. But it is also true that smokers cost much less in healthcare and in social security and pension (for those who are government workers, which is a large percentage) over the course of their lifetimes. This is a result of their shortened lifespans.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Show us legitimate studies to back up that assertion or you are full of crap. I state that the ultra wealthy smoke more, see we can all throw out our own “facts.”

        • rcsjr2

          Streiff, you are correct, it’s longevity that will be costly with respect to “healthcare” not brevity.

        • theccur

          Darwin

      • Joe Cunningham

        The state GOP is filled with former Democrats who party hopped to get re-elected, especially in 2010. So, really, it’s both.

      • PowerToThePeople

        Are you serious with that nonsense? Just for kicks and giggles, let us say you are correct that way we can avoid more nonsense from you. Let me present it this way.

        Being fat causes higher HC cost as does simply being fatter than someone thinner. Let us tax that. Anything above normal BMI gets taxed.

        Those who do not consistently exercise are more likely to cause cost than those who do, so let us tax non exercise.

        Those who eat more than a minimal amount of red meat are going to bring higher cost, tax away.

        Those who eat pork products will cost more, tax em.

        Those who drink sugary drinks…..

        Those who eat sweats….

        Those who work in underground jobs……

        Those who work in stressful jobs……….

        I could list things all day who people claim may cause higher HC cost, what are you willing to pay for doing. Got to cover the possibility of higher HC cost, so you submit to us everything you do that is not perfectly healthy so we can propose you be taxed for it. Either give us the list or get out here with your BS.

        By the way, since when it is the right thing to do to tax people into our choices for them. I am sure we could find a few things you do that we could tax you into stopping. Wonder if you would be cool with that.

        • timmcg

          wow. I knew if I was on this site long enough, I would agree with you.

          I just think it would be this year :)

          • PowerToThePeople

            Figured we could get there eventually.

        • freemkts

          Insurance companies already do this, or at least they did until ObamaCare came along. Insurance companies screeen for all sorts of lifestyle things. Do you smoke? What’s your blood pressure? Are you fat? And they charge higher premiums to people who present the greater risk. It’s called risk management.

          Raising cigarette taxes is like charging people a higher premium. Don’t like it? Don’t smoke. Problem solved. You wouldn’t think this would be a contentious issue on a supposedly conservative website. The main argument against raising cigarette taxes comes from liberals who say they’re regressive, as was the point of this diary. I never knew I could tap into your liberal bleeding heart.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Logic fails you quite often does it not? What a private company does has nothing to do with what government should do. Government is not supposed to pay for everybody in the first place and they are not supposed to single out groups of people and punish them via taxes. That is not a conservative value no matter how much you think it is. In fact, it is a liberal value, control people and push agendas to make everyone “healthy” (Bloomberg soft drink ban) via the government. So you only tapped into your own stupidity and leftist mentality.

            And I see you skipped the part where you listed your own health shortcoming so we could push to tax them. Got to pay for your choices right?

      • theccur

        It’s like being a VIGILANTE, at what point does the government (eg. New York City) decide to STOP controlling your self destructive instincts. Hint=NEVER.

    • Dave_A

      Smokers inflict higher costs on society than non-smokers, and should absolutely be charged for them…

      Plus, the idea is to discourage people from using an addictive recreational drug… Which is quite a good thing….

      • PowerToThePeople

        And you are out in left field on this one as well. A) There are hundred of thousands of things that so called cost society more, none of which are provable, B) We should not act like Bloomberg and in fact I think I saw where you posted disagreements with his nanny state crap which brings me to C) Government and taxes are not the proper vehicle for forced rehab.

        All of you punish the smokers crowd better get off your high horses before activities you are entitled to participate in become the new crusade of the nanny state and you see your wallet thickness shrink. Bet you will not be so cool with it then. Maybe they will go after the meat and potato crowd next, or maybe the soft drink crowd, maybe the beer crowd, but you can only bleed smokers so much and then they have to move on to the next one.

      • rogershru2

        Actually they probably have a lower cost on society, as measured in healthcare dollars and social security/pension dollars. They will cost more than non smokers per year, but they die so much sooner that the overall cost is less.

        insurance should be allowed to charge extra because they will not see the benefit of their early demise, as they would lose them to Medicare anyway. Just like they should charge extra based on bmi. But it’s a tougher argument to make for taxation, because then you get into taxing 20 oz sodas, candy bars, tv, fast food, butter, and other unhealthy things.

      • streiff

        sort of like banning transfats and reducing soda size are good things

      • veritaseequitas

        You are a little leftist at heart aren’t you Dave? Smokers, drinkers, recreational drug users? It is their right to ruin their health or send them to an early grave if they decide to partake. However, they should pay more on their health insurance premiums for the privilage, not tax the crap out of the rest of us. Which is another excellent reason why ObamaCareTax sucks the big one.

      • joshinca

        Smokers inflict higher costs on society than non-smokers

        False.

        Smoker die earlier than non smokers and so collect less social security and medicare benefits.

        There are dozens of studies that have repeatedly demonstrated that.

    • theccur

      I have to agree, people have a RIGHT to behave foolishly. The government should NEVER put itself in the position of rewarding or punishing legal behavior.

  • timmcg

    I like this quote from the article:

    “Price said the statistics clearly show that states with higher income taxes are safer, have better schools and better infrastructure. Consequently, those states have more jobs, higher personal income averages and less poverty, he said.”

    Totally ridiculous.

    Those State have higher personal incomes and therefor have more money for schools and infrastructure, not the other way around.

    It would be like saying rich people go out to fancy restaurants more often so if you want to be rich, go to fancy restaurants.

  • stevemaley

    One of the components of the Jindal plan is a program to rebate tax payments to the poor. I can’t say I’m crazy about it because of the potential for abuse, but it needs to be factored in when assessing the impact.

  • surfcitysocal

    Several clergy also panned Rep. Michele Bachmann’s candidacy for the presidency, saying it was “harmful” or some other bunch of hooey. So yes, these clergy could most definitely be wrong.

    • Dave_A

      Except in the case of Bachmann they were absolutely right.

      Anyone who thinks vaccines cause autisim is unfit for duty as POTUS.

      • joshinca

        Yeah, she lost me with that bit of nuttery.

        A ridiculous thing about the whole incident is that the anti-vaccine crowd is mostly on the left.

        • theccur

          That FALLACIOUS belief was created wholly from FALSIFIED research. Many people who jumped aboard the train failed to get off.

          • servant1951

            Not entirely true. The jury is still out on this. Certain dubious ingredients that was used in past vaccines was stated to have been removed, but some writers have found discrepancies in these statements. One of the ingredients discussed in mercury. Makes you think. We have been fooled before. The government nearly got away with syphilis experiments on black males. Conservatives should never fully trust government. Even the Founding Fathers stated do. I got the flue seriously one year, in 2004, the only year I accepted a flue vaccine.

          • rogershru2

            No the jury is not out. There is no good evidence to support a link. Further, even if thiomersal were still present, there is no evidence to link mercury and autism. The unsupported claims of a link continue to harm children and elderly as they decrease vaccination rates.

          • joshinca

            Not only that, but she said that a person told her that vaccination caused mental retardation in their child, not autism. And the person that supposedly told her that never came forward and verified the story.

  • albertmaslar

    States should be happy with 6-page 85-point plan “To Fix It All.” Gov. Jindall will see Medicaid costs plummet. Family health insurance is projected to run about $1,500 per month. The plan to fix it all is anchored by a 3% National Sales Tax on everything by everyone, every organization; NO exceptions, and therefore no lobbyists. Lanny Davis published figures in “TheHill.com” that would provide sales tax of about $4.4 Trillion per year in taxes times three. The first $4.4 Trillion more than covers current budget expenditures. The second $4.4 Trillion would be dedicated to reduction of the $16 Trillion National Debt. The third $4.4 Trillion would go to Universal Medicare that would automatically cover everyone in the country legally, and a simplified tax return would have to filed by all, income received or not. All income would be equal with NO special treatment or exemptions, that would be supported by a new Tax Table applicable to all individuals, businesses, corporations, charities, education, religious organizations, foundations, and even government whose 3% paid would go toward debt reduction and automatically cutting budget. Income taxes would be cut with a maximum graduated 20% rate that would result in JOBS-JOBS-JOBS paying TAXES-TAXES-TAXES.
    Effective tax rate on Taxable Income of $100,000 2.74%
    Effective tax rate on Taxable Income of $1 Million 7.47%
    Effective tax rate on Taxable Income of $1 Billion 19.88%
    Request full 6-page 85-point plan from: albertmaslar2@gmail.com

    • theccur

      IF there were a NATIONAL sales tax, WHY should I file a Income Tax Return?

  • reformist55

    What clergymen are we talking about, context, context, context. You got servants of God versus servants of Obama.

  • reformist55

    what clergymen? God’s or Obama’s?

  • thompsoj

    Jingal has it right. The Federal Governement should do the same thing. All income taxes with all the exemptions that come with them should be eliminated in favor of a sales tax. Sales tax would capture all consumers both rich and poor and those not registered or just visiting. Obviously the rich would be taxed more as they consume more and spend more. Everyone would then have skin in the game as many like to say. Too many folks do not now pay taxes and do not contribute to serious thought on how to improve goverrnment but only how to get more free stuff. Elimination of income tax would have the added benefit of greatly downsizing the Internal Revenue Service. This is a monster in itself and would save untold millions. Total elimination fo the income tax should be mandatory if such a plan were to be adopted.

    • theccur

      ONLY if you include total elimination of all other taxes.

  • rightlane1111

    I bet…in my gut..that if we got rid of the IRS and went to a national sales tax, or flat tax…and allowed our companies to repatriate their funds…we’d be out of this mess…oh…and Obama needs to go..and don’t even think of Hildabeast…just a retread of Obama.

  • runner12

    It is shameful how so many Christians have distorted the Bible ‘s teachings on wealth. The Bible never condemns the possession of wealth, not once. Nor does it raise poverty to a virtue. The Way of Christ teaches on the use and trust in wealth. A poor man can trust and abuse money just as much as the rich man. One is no better or worse than the other because of their socio-economic status. It is a heart issue.

    In fact, if you have more you are able to give more. It grieves me to see the clergy engage in class warfare like this. It is against everything the Bible teaches on this subject, that rich and poor are all alike in God’s eyes. They may be very sincere,but their efforts are best used in relieving the suffering of the poor and trying to limit the factors that drive people into poverty.

  • theccur

    Sales taxes are INHERENTLY regressive, but here are recognized ways to reduce their impact on the poor. Personal income and corporate taxes are extortionist in nature and harm commerce., plus the state incurs a higher cost collecting personal and corporate taxes. Every state with the regressive sales tax and NO personal or corporate taxes prospers.