I’m not the biggest Reuven Carlyle fan. Still, I’m glad he goes after tax loopholes.
Carlyle, who’s been beating the tax breaks drum for years, went on to trash the whole exemptions process, saying it was time to apply “the same line by line rigor to both sides of the ledger” pointing out that while the legislature debates program spending every budget cycle, it looks the other way when it comes to tax breaks. “It’s a new era. We’re expecting and demanding a new level of rigor for tax breaks.”
Carlyle said that the legislature has created 277 new tax exemptions worth $3.6 billion since 1995 (he didn’t also note, though, that the Democrats have been in control for most of that time).* The grand total now, he said, is 640 tax exemptions worth “tens of billions.”
Carlyle said that some of them made sense, but concluded: “Here’s the deal: Let’s acknowledge as a state that in some cases the money from tax breaks would deliver better value, a better return on investment, by investing in kids and families, schools and universities.”
I suspect that I’d find more loopholes to close than Carlyle (or the median legislator in either house). But this is a good conversation to have.
* The GOP controlled (or had a tie) in at least one house of he legislature for much of that time. It would be interesting to see how much tax loopholes have increased or not depending on control of the legislature, but that wasn’t in the post.
He might close a loophole or two but any money saved will be offset by the sales tax money we lose when 7/11s can only sell small soft drinks:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg floated the idea of a prohibition on super sized soda pop. He was uncharacteristically unsuccessful. He is often mocked for the effort. I applaud it. I suggest it has been unsuccessful because it is too limited in scope. Go big or go home is probably the only way forward.
http://reuvencarlyle36.com/
Go big or go home, the legislator says.
Just don’t Go Big Gulp.
@1 For the record, I’m not in favor of paternalistic government saying people can’t ruin their teeth and clog their arteries by guzzling tanker truckloads of soda pop. Pop machines should be banned from public schools, though.
(Full disclosure: Roger Rabbit doesn’t own any soda pop stock, but he’s thinking about buying some! Investing in humans’ bad habits usually makes a lot of monetary sense, you humans being the self-destructive, low-intelligence, creatures that you are.)
Tax loopholes smack of special treatment for privilege elites who buy favors from politicians that are denied to the rest of us. They should all be eliminated and the tax rules should be exactly the same for everyone.
@ 3
…the tax rules should be exactly the same for everyone.
Flat tax, in other words. How progressive of you.
@4 He said “the tax rules should be exactly the same for everyone” not the “the tax rates should be exactly the same for everyone.”
There you go again, trying to cast confusion and dissent. How conservative of you.
Keep it up, show us all how empty you are.
Over in another thread
which is the text version of what Serial “Get Help” Conn did. He took the text, selectively edited and then tried to make Roger look bad. It only reinforced that Serial “Get Help” Conn is corrupt.
I assume the reference is to the state Business and Occupation tax?
The first problem with that tax (and there are many) is that it attempts to tax revenue, not profits. But some businesses have high overheads representing the cost of production, others do not. They attempt to offset this disparity by giving different tax rates to differenet types of businesses or industries, and that’s where one of the big problem lies – it’s a big hammer tryig to measure and tax what needs to be done by a scapel.
And, of course, the bigger the industry is, the more likely it will seek even greater favorable tax treatment under the threat of taking it’s jobs elsewhere. Boeing has been using this for decades to compel the state to essentially give it a tax-free environment in the state, and even demand that the state subsidize a portion of it’s business operations.
The state sales tax has similar problems, but it doesn’t have the disparate tax rates based on the indsutry.
The net effect, of course, is to reward big, established businesses or those which are politically influention (such as Fairview Fannie), while passing the tax burder on to the small and medium-sized businessess.
@ 6
He took the text, selectively edited and then tried to make Roger look bad
In most instances, no effort is required to make Roger look bad. One need only read what he spews.
@8. Whoo Golly, you showed him. That school boy taunt was so successful at slamming Rabbit and Fascist. We bask in your brilliance. Your wit and wisdom are blinding. Please post something else that is so cutting and shows conservative ideals so well. Please. Please. I beg you PLEASE. Say something intelligent.
@ 9
I’m just wondering who is going to be the one who decides how one fairly and equally taxes each incremental gross revenue dollar earned by the immigrant family who scraped enough together to buy a Subway franchise location, vs. that incremental revenue dollar earned by, oh, say, Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell or by Grant Thornton.
After all, the sage Roger Rabbit intoned that
They should all be eliminated and the tax rules should be exactly the same for everyone.
So, should the struggling restaurant retail dollar be treated exactly the same as the high-brow professional services dollar, VSC?
@10 No! Yes! No! Taxes bad. It’s Obama’s fault. Bengazi. No taxes on the wealth generators! Who need government services, I’m a self made man. Taxes bad. Serial conservative, you are so right!
@10
Once again you are not comparing the same things. Rabbit was arguing loopholes. You were whining about Progressive tax rates and then babbling about something else entirely.
As far as progressive taxes, if the retailer or the professional are making in the millions, they should be play a significantly higher tax rate then if they were struggling, near the poverty line.
From 4,
No, the progressives want a progressive tax code wherein higher brackets of income are taxed at higher rates. It’s one their most important tenets.
I’d like to see a more simple, flatter tax system. Getting rid of those “carve-out” deductions is a good start of moving to a truly flat rate system.
(I even support phasing out the mortgage interest deduction for home purchasers.)
@ 12
As far as progressive taxes, if the retailer or the professional are making in the millions, they should be play a significantly higher tax rate
Ah, but now we’re talking about profits. B&O taxes aren’t based on profits, they’re based on gross revenues.
If everyone is supposed to be treated the same, then why extend the B&O tax surcharge of anotehr 20% on services, rather than let it expire and replace it with an across-the-board B&O tax increase on everybody?
Everyone should be treated exactly the same, right?
Greeting my most excellent Neo-socialist comrades! I agree with Ten Years After as to the idea of a flat rate system. A flat rate method is just about as fair as one can get when it comes to taxation.