Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
I'm not opposed to taxation. I think that property, licensing and consumption taxes should be the bulk of our tax base. Taxing passive income would also be a good way to tax the very wealthy without unfairly targeting the majority of workers in the state. Taxing active income, no matter the size of the income, is not a good way to encourage people to earn.
I am afraid that when this initiative passes, and time marches on, the incomes eligible for taxation will be made progressively lower every year until everyone is paying a state income tax. Again, taxation is fine, but taxing at the paycheck hurts.
Corporations make jobs when they need more workers to keep up with production demand. They hire new people when it will help the bottom line to do so, not when they have extra tax-break money jingling around in their pockets.
Wealthy individuals create jobs when they need their pools cleaned.
More than 90 percent of US jobs come from small business.
The definition used by the IRS has that as businesses that make LESS than $250k.
In other words, the very job creation comes from the people who will get a TAX CUT on the B&O tax under 1098, NOT the people who will pay more taxes cause they make LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY AND PAY much less as a percent of their income than YOU or poor people do.
And that is a fact.
Source: US Treasury Department.
You'll love it.
Time to go back to those!
Are you sure?
We used to encourage people making $100,000 or less to save but we got rid of that tax exemption. I seem to recall it was some conservative President that did that.
In my case my tax liability goes up $300 ($279 property tax savings and $598 federal tax increase).
They love to point out that 20% reduction in property taxes, yet avoid the "state portion" fine print. So a big difference between assumed $1,200 reduction and $279 actual.