Audio: Border Merchants Say Gas Tax Will Destroy Businesses
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20130214/NEWS03/702149891
MONTPELIER — Vermont merchants doing business along the New Hampshire border say a proposed tax increase on gasoline will destroy what’s left of their fragile retail economy.
The Shumlin administration is looking to make up a $36 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2014 transportation budget by imposing a new surcharge on unleaded gas. But gas station owners from up and down the Connecticut River Valley told lawmakers Tuesday that they’re already losing business to their lower-tax competitors to the east. Adding a new tax now, they said, could put a nail in the coffin of a long-struggling retail sector.
“I will lose what business I have left,” Cheryl Cote, owner and operator of a gas station in Canaan, told members of the House Committee on Transportation. “This tax is destroying the businesses along the New Hampshire-Vermont border — totally destroying them.”
Chris Cole, director of policy and planning for the Agency of Transportation, said tax revenue isn’t keeping pace with Vermont’s infrastructure needs, in part because of flagging gasoline sales. Sales of unleaded gas in 2011 were about 9 percent off their peak in 2005.
“We’re going down each year, and our revenues reflect that,” Cole said.
The Shumlin proposal would assess a 4 percent tax on the retail price of gasoline and cut the current per-gallon excise to 14.3 cents, from 19 cents. Combined with a $9 million bond, the revenue package would net the $36 million that Cole said is needed for upkeep of roads and bridges. Without the money, he says, Vermont won’t be able to afford the state match for its federal projects and could be forced to send back an estimated $40 million to Washington, D.C.
But Peter Annis, owner of Black River Quick Stop in Springfield, said he’s already losing retail traffic to Granite State competitors in Claremont and Charlestown, where state gas taxes are 7 cents per gallon lower than they are here. The Shumlin proposal would, at current gas prices, add 8 or 9 cents per gallon to the state portion of the gas tax and open up a 15-cent gap across the border.
“As a border town owner who has seen the state increase the cigarette tax and a ... drop in cigarette sales, I can only imagine what will happen with this proposed increase in the gas tax,” Annis said.
Like most gas station owners, Annis said, he relies on the pumps to attract retail business. He said he’s already taking a loss on gasoline sales to keep foot traffic coming through the store, but said he won’t be able to eat another 9 cents per gallon.
Joe Choquette, a Statehouse lobbyist for the Vermont Petroleum Association, said the proposal would give Vermont the ninth-highest state gas tax in the nation; New York’s would still be far higher.
Cole said the Shumlin plan has the benefit of tying the gas tax to an inflationary index, something that will allow revenue to keep pace with rising construction costs. The existing gas tax, he said, has lost about 40 percent of its buying power over the last 20 years. And the plan has the support of numerous interest groups, including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, which said municipal road budgets will be among the first oxen gored should the state fail to solve its budget shortfall.
Not everyone in Montpelier is so convinced of the need to raise the gas tax.
“I’m not there yet,” said Sen. Dick Mazza, a Grand Isle Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation. “I think there still may be wiggle room in the budget where we can come up with money we need for the federal match.”
Rep. Patrick Brennan, a Colchester Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation, said there may be ways to raise the revenue without upping prices at the pump. Brennan said one-third of revenue from the purchase and use tax — about $29 million annually — is now deposited into the education fund.
“If we just kept that money in our transportation fund and maybe (tied the existing excise tax to inflation), we’d be where we need to be, revenue-wise,” Brennan said.
But House Speaker Shap Smith, who looks to be on board with Shumlin’s proposal, said he couldn’t support a plan that took nearly $30 million from the education fund without finding a way to replace it.
“That’s another 3 cents on the statewide property tax rate,” Smith said.
And Brian Searles, state Agency of Transportation secretary, said that while the purchase and use tax idea may be worthy of consideration, it’s too late in schools’ budgeting cycle to be messing around with the education fund.
Searles said he sympathizes with the retailers in border towns.
“They are a genuine concern, and we hear them,” he said.
But he said a proposal pending in the New Hampshire Statehouse may minimize the impact. Lawmakers there are mulling a 12-cent-per-gallon increase in the state gas tax, a response, Searles said, to years of underfunding in Granite State transportation budgets.
“I think it’s important to look at this in the context of what’s going on in other states,” Searles said. “Other states are having their own problems.”
Gas station owners see their doom in tax proposal
By Peter Hirschfeld
Vermont Press Bureau | February 14,2013
Rutland Herald
Too bad for you (sarcasm). If you people continue to vote for the Democrats then you get just what you deserve, Higher Taxes.
ReplyDeleteI was in Black River Quick Stop the other day and I saw this severly obese (he was HUGE) young man buy 4 huge energy drinks.
DeleteMy guess is that my tax dollars are either hard at work paying for his current medical bills or they will be in the future.
Either way we are all screwed.
Ah, yes! The curse of taxes.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how the news purveyors point us at a single tax issue, and we stare at it like a chicken hypnotized by the chalk line its beak has been placed on.
Let's step back a bit and look at the bigger picture.
You know how much the average Vermont household of four in Vermont makes? About $58,000.
You know how much the average Vermont household in the middle quintile (the 40th to 60th percent) makes? Hold onto your hat: $166,000.
Take a guess at how much Vermont taxable income there was in 2011, the Adjusted Gross Income figure from the federal return on which Vermont bases its taxation. Five hundred billion? Six hundred billion? Double that-- It's $1.2 TRILLION.
Now, if you wanted a health care system that would take care of you and your family for their usual needs (the average kid uses up $16,000 worth of care by age six, and that's just to stay more or less healthy), and that wouldn't bankrupt you, and that stayed with you even when you lost your job, and that was paid for out of your share of that $1.2 trillion, your tax load would be three-tenths of a percent!
But instead, we are treated to stories about how store owners are getting screwed. They're not getting as badly screwed as their shoppers.
Nobody talks about the "total tax load," the amount households pay for income, capital gains, personal use, sales, property, etc. We all know about the 50% who "don't pay taxes," but that's only about INCOME taxes. When you add in all the other taxes, the picture is quite different.
Guess who pays the least in "total taxes" in Vermont? Yup, the top 1%, whose rate is 8%. Guess who pays the most? The middle quintile, 10.4%. If the top 2.1% paid a 10.4% rate, it would generate an extra $48.2 million. Not that that would provide affordable health care for all, by any means, but it could eliminate at least some of the tax threats to border store owners.
The total tax load on the average Vermont family of four, by the way, is 9.1%
In general, people who complain about taxes don't know what they ought to be complaining about when it comes to taxes. We could have a tax system to cover all the state's needs which would dramatically reduce most people's taxes. A household making $60,000 a year would pay about $700. THAT's what we should be complaining about!
Chuck, count me in, but does the fat kid still get to eat like a gluttonous pig?
DeletePathetic losers like you continue to envy what others have and rightfully ought to be able to keep since it's their own. Why so jealous? Is it because you couldn't make $166,000 in annual income in your wildest dreams? Bottom feeders like CG and the sewer rats continue to whine because in their opinion others better than them are NOT paying enough in taxes, while the real problem is that these annual income cellar dwellers just aren't earning enough themselves to be able to contribute to the tax base. So they whine and snivel and vote in more libs who ply them with more handouts while strangling the state's economy and curtailing the wealth creation that might, just might, enable CG and his sewer rats to earn a better income. Don't tread on us CG. Get off your ass and earn a higher income and pay more of it in taxes if you want to contribute to a real solution.
DeleteChuckles the Clown. I call baloney on your household income figure of $166,000 for the middle household income quintile for Vermont. The median household income is about $53,000. Me thinks you fabricated that number to manipulate your fairy tale.
DeleteYou have to read the data, 8:27. Start here: http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Historic-Table-2
DeleteClick on Vermont. Notice block A2 which says the money figures are in thousands of dollars (thus, 1,000 means $1 million). Now go down to block B14, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), which says 15,678,234. That translates to $15,678,234,000, or $15.678 trillion dollars.
And I said $1.2 trillion was Vermont's total AGI income. I was wrong! Thank you for calling me on it. What this means of course is that if we had to pay every penny of universal health care for ourselves,instead of costing three-tenths of a percent of our income, it would only cost about 4-hundredths of a percent. For a family making $50,000 a year, that would be $200. But since our tax system is not fair.....
Oops, I put your reply in Anon 8:27's space. i wish you people would get creative about using tags. So look up there for your answer.
DeleteMeanwhile, here's the answer 8:27 is looking for:
Go to http://www.state.vt.us/tax/statisticsincome.shtml
Click on state income data. Select the sheet with "2011 Vermont Personal Income Tax Returns - Dollars."
Insert a new column C next to column B, "Returns." Title it "% of Returns." Enter in C4 the formula, =b4/310625. "310625" is the total number of in-state returns, from box B27. Click and drag from c4 to c25 to enter the formula in all the cells. You can now see what percentage of total returns is represented by each income level. Since most households file only one return, you get a pretty good idea of how many households there are in each level, and you can make a graph if you want.
Now, insert a new column to to right of C. Title it "Aggregate Percentage." Enter in D4 the formula, =c4. Enter in D5 the formula, =d4+c5. Click and drag from D5 to d25, and you will have an increasing percentage total.
Next, click and drag from B4 to F7 and give those fields their own color. You have just identified 18.62% of Vermont households, the lowest quintile in income. Do the same to identify the next three quintiles (B8-F10, B11-F14, B15-F17). Identify the next 15%, actually 16.28%, but who's counting? (B18-f20), the next 4% (B21-F22) and the top 1% (B23-F25). That was easy, wasn't it?
Now, go the the middle quintile, B11-F14. Column E is adjusted gross income. pick an empty box and enter the formula, =(Sum(e11:e14)/(b11:b14). There you are!
You have no idea what you are spewing. Your link clearly shows that there are only about 10,000 out of 310,000 tax returns with incomes over $150,000. Claiming the middle quintile makes $166,000 is fraudulent. Stop with the misleading and obfuscations.
DeleteAnonymous 9:59, don't you understand that is data! You cannot go against data or have a conversation without using his data. Get ready now for Chuckie to fire back with twelve other website of different facts and figures. I'm still waiting for him to tell me why Vermont is one of two states with a declining population. Can't be all that money we're making.
DeleteChuckie, I guess the post that lays claim to you being nice guy and never attacking may have to be rethunk? I gave you a few chances yesterday to show yourself and you did. Tea baggers is not only a dig but a slur to the gay population.
Since you are on fist name basis with our Senators and Congressman maybe they can explain to you why their incomes keep growing while ours keep shrinking? And by the way don't skirt your answer buy trying once again to change the subject. This isn't liberal 101 here, give us your opinion and not that of your "idols".
Some advice for you. Pryor to the election I listened to Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Maddow, Mathews, Schutlz, etc. The day after the election I turned them all off and have not listened once since. I decided to listen to our leaders myself. It's amazing what I have heard from both very sad parties. So use all the data and drop all the names you want here, but at some point open your eyes and ears, engage your brain and see where the problems really begin. They may include Berine, Pat, Peter and several of there friends. They should start a new reality show called "The Federal Government Circus Smirkus".
How can tea baggers be a slur to the gay population, I have tea bagged plenty of women.
DeleteThanks for blowing that one, Looks to me it was a set-up for Chuckie to explain his choice of words.
DeleteAnonymous at 9:29-- When I looked at the spreadsheet results, I thought exactly what you thought, but then I remembered this was "adjusted gross income," so maybe the unadjusted gross income explained them.
DeleteHowever, I made a mistake in the formula, one which the program accepted (garbage in, garbage out). I found it when I was typing out the steps, and I left it in them for readers to find.
Nobody here bothered to check my homework, sad to say.
What the wrong formula gives for the first four quintiles is,
minus $267, $56,00, $168,716, $135,302
What the correct formula gives is,
minus $121, $17,267, $34,150 $58,697
I apologize for the error and regret that some people might have relied on false information I provided them. The original message I conveyed-- that the middle class pays more in total taxes than the wealthiest-- still stands, however, and it is more forceful than before: The quintile which averages barely $34,000 a year has a 40% greater tax load than the households which have twenty-three times their income. Readers who complain about taxes ought to think about the significance of this.
It would have been helpful if some reader had actually taken the time to examine my material rather than shoot from the hip. You, Anonymous 2:46, at least had the right gut reaction. More power to you!
oops, that's not 2:46 but 9:29. credit where credit is due!
DeleteChuckie, no one was checking your numbers because more are posting here based on opinion of what they see and hear. You choose to present data to support your case, incorrect data that many of us knew was wrong without spending hours correcting your homework. Then as a true liberal when you are proven wrong we get the "Oh, my mistake. Sorry about that. Move along nothing to see here."
DeleteYou are a roit. Chuckles the Clown certainly is the right label.
Anon @ 8:58-- Pricing affects behavior. That fat kid might "still get to eat like a gluttonous pig," but not if he can't afford it. The Center for Disease Control states that a 10% hike in cigarette prices causes a 4% drop in smoking, and there was a massive drop in smoking rates in Manhattan when prices went up to $14 a pack. An increased tax on gas, corn-sweetener-loaded snacks, etc. WILL produce changed behaviors. It is to be hoped that the changes would be to the good-- better food choices, more environmentally-friendly and salubrious transportation, for example-- but the changes might not be-- such as bootlegging snacks and buying gas out-of-state. It's the smart people who change their habits to accommodate the price hike.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 12:36-- Ignore the data and pay all the taxes you want to. There's a name for that behavior.
So Chuckie, if I was a moron you would be making some very good points. I really enjoy your logic of changing habits by raising taxes. I guess your belief is that it is ok for a business to lose profits, which will eventually put them out of business, as long as the taxes are in place to “change our habits”. You certainly are a beauty.
DeleteUse our tax dollars to repair our roads? Agreed. Use tax dollars towards education, building town / state infrastructure and maintaining some public assistance for those in need of help (in need of not living on). Agreed. While you are running all you little stats maybe you can shoot back at us how much money is spent on welfare. By welfare I meaning all checks, food stamps, medical expenses, etc that are sucked up by the dependant class of our sociality. And where does that money come from?
I don’t disagree that there are certainly some taxing inequalities. But somehow every new tax that comes along hits us bottom feeders. To which, at least according to you will lead us to a “change of habits” that will be good for us. Thank you Commander Gregory. It’s amazing how you can make some decent points and then blow it by interjecting your opinion that counteracts your points.
So to be clear Mr. Big Government, a tax hike benefits no one except the Politicians that created the tax hike and uses a business (such as gas stations) as there strong arm to collect it. Even the do gooder Robin Hood would have a problem with this, he would have to rob the gas station to give the money to the poor. This or course would leave the gas station owner as one of the poor.
Have you ever noticed that most of the problems in the world that Politicians promise to fix or complain about they actually created? Ponder that while you are looking for a gas station in Vermont to fill up at.
By the way, you are correct that 50% are only effecting income tax. So another point for you to ponder while fighting for the bigger government way; Where does that money come from that those 50% pay “other” taxes with? Let me help, the government that gives it to them. And who is the government? Now maybe you can explain to me why our ecomony is not growing.
Harry, if the fat kid is uninsured and we are paying for his health care, would you agree that we shouldn't allow him to poison his body which would further raise the costs of his health care which would increase our taxes?
DeleteIn addition (yes I did use there for their in my last post, get over it) Chuckie. Let’s say higher gas taxes “change a habit” or driving to work. How would an average Vermonter get to work in New Hampshire (you know, where the jobs are)? The bus? The subway? Train? Taxi? Oh I know, car pooling.
DeleteNow if the poor working stiff really wanted to “change his habits” he could hitchhike. And while he’s our bumming a ride to work because gas prices are out of the question he can’t even stop at the gas station to warm up because they will be out of business (no gas to sell, no cupcakes with a nice cold coke to sell, no butts or beer to sell), poor guy will freeze to death along the road side just trying to pay his taxes. But now worry the folks living off is income taxes will be at Shaws loading up their baskets, placing the bags in their new SUV heading to their very warm and cozy apartments to watch the Price is Right. Thank God those folks are safe.
Chuckie, can’t we just keep the little bit we have left, please!
Anonymous 7:10, What if the fat kid had a real PE class in school. One where he runs, jumps and sweats a little bit instead of stretching and yoga. I just did my stretching and now I'm heading to Dunkin to reward myself. Of course this is on my dime.
A real P.E. class would require more tax dollars. Children no long have daily P.E. because our educational system is too concerned with testing.
Deletewell the super majority will do everything they can to destroy the working poor. i made 24000 and the goverment took 22%. now that doent include my rent tax. property tax. now you want 3 to 4 thousand of my hard earned money for a private company. so ill pay and have this huge deductible. kinda funny how every one we've taken care thinks its a great idea. dont tread on me.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 6:15-- I assume you're referring to the "health insurance exchange." Are you aware that it was structured to be as profitable as possible for the health insurers in order that Obamacare would be passed into law? And the health insurance industry lobbyists made sure it would be as unaffordable as possible so that people like you and I would want to see the whole thing destroyed. Those lobbyists were paid $1.5 million PER DAY fighting against affordable health care.
DeleteThe good news is, you have to get screwed for only three years, because in 2017, Vermont will be able to dump the exchange and operate its own single-payer plan. If the Legislature does its job right-- and it probably will-- here's what you'll have available then:
1. All traditional medical services will be available to you.
2. You won't have to put off going to the doctor when you are sick or injured.
3. There will be no deductibles.
4. There will be a standard co-pay.
5. You won't be excluded for a pre-existing condition.
6. You won't pay more for a pre-existing condition.
7. You'll use the doctors you want to.
8. You and your doctor will determine what to do for you.
9. If you lose your job, you and your family will still be covered.
10. Medical costs for the whole system will go down about 25%.
Now, this is not guaranteed-- as I said, it depends on the Legislature-- so it's in your interest to see that it happens. Connect with the Vermont Workers Center (google it) and help make it happen.
Meanwhile, think of the next three years as the end of your time on the health insurance industry's cross.
chuck the state still hasnt figured out how to pay for this. the u mass report dodged it. the nearest dollar sign i have seen is a 15% income tax. i dont want your health care because i wont be able to afford to live. your dems are totaly content with attacking the working poor. your goverment will be stealing 37% of my money. so i'll work 40 and get paid for 22. that doesnt sound like a very good deal for me. on the other hand the doctors and insurance companys are happy.
DeleteHarry Byrd-- You are generally correct to say "every new tax that comes along hits us bottom feeders." You are incorrect to say "most of the problems in the world that Politicians promise to fix or complain about they actually created." You had only to look at one of those government-free "People's Parks" of the hippie Sixties to see what a lack of government does. If you think that my overview of the inequity of the tax situation is fighting for "Big Government," we are on different planets. And I did not say that a change in price leads people to make smarter choices; I said it leads smart people to make better choices.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that we bottom feeders are so easily distracted by the nature of the adjustments in the system that we forget to look at the system. You managed to focus on that briefly, but then drifted off into the distraction again.
It would be nice to someday hear your opinion about hedge fund manager Jack Strauss who in 2010 made $9 billion and has paid not a penny in taxes, because he calls it "carried interest," which a law made hedge fund CEO's income non-taxable. Meanwhile, the help who actually monitored the market, worked the phones and the customers, and generated his profits for him are paying $4,000 for an apartment the size of your kitchen, on $50,000 a year. Do the math and tell me if maybe they NEED food stamps.
Chuckie, agreed on us being on different planets. Too bad that is not possible. Today is your day for my opinion on hedge funds laws. First a few questions. Those laws were set up by whom? Enforced by whom? And often lead to the biggest capital gains by whom? Careful now because the word Politician may used in your answer. So what are the chances of Congress changing those laws? (Please don’t get into party in control issues, one is as bad as the other.) So my opinion is this; If they are operation inside of the law, then I have no issues. Just because you can’t have some of the profit doesn’t make them law breakers. Remember this, the President can’t do anything outside the law. He can only suggest or offer laws and budgets, Congress has to pass it. Thus it is easy for our President to lay out big plans based on facts that even he knows the chance of getting through Congress is near zero. It’s a case of I can talk and thankfully no one is there to back up my words.
DeletePeople Parks? Hippies? You talk about taking the conversation into a whole other direction. Classic liberal move.
Facts are taxes create more government. More folks on food stamps create jobs of servicing those folks down at the State Office. More tax money spent on building and repairs the more oversight that is needed, thus expanded government jobs. Over time those folks need more a raise and better benefits which are covered by higher taxes. Isn’t it amazing how a sector that really produces nothing creates so many problems for those that do. So you favor higher taxes, you favor larger government.
You have a problem with the 1%. I don’t have a problem or condemn you for your fight. I have a problem with paying more and more while using the 1% as an excuse. So are you creating that distraction?We already know the tax dollars that would be “found” are only drops in the bucket to this deficit. So when you are talking about being distracted take another look at your Politicians that lay down those distractions. Do you find it interesting that many a person enters politics as poor man and leaves it a very rich man? I don’t think it’s all the salary and benefits we taxpayers provide.
If you have a problem with big government then we are on the same page. Problem is your preaching doesn't sound that way.
Harry Byrd, my apologies for my rant of the morning-- it was before my coffee, and I didn't take the time to understand that you were trying to deal with two issues-- inequitable taxation and the concept of people who make a lot less money than you do as being undeserving. Had I been more reflective and intelligent about it, I would have pointed out those were the fights and it was your job to determine which one is more important for you to wage.
ReplyDeleteI would point out two things: First, it's a lot easier to dump on someone who has less power and fewer resources (intelligence, money, opportunity, etc.), so a fight against the poorer is the easier one. But it's still your choice.
The second is that to people like Jack Strauss, Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump and Obama's mentor, Robert Rubin, you and I are the poorer, underpowered, and under-resourced, and the question to answer is whether they don't view us the way you feel about the bottom 50%. And they're a lot harder to fight. I try fight them by telling people what's going on. It doesn't work well, does it? It's a lot easier to dump on the poor, believe me.
I would suggest you go to Wikipedia to get all the details on "carried interest." It'll save me a lot of writing, and you'll be more likely to believe what is said about which party was in power when it was passed.
I don't have a problem with "big government." Big government gave us the Interstate, the Internet, the air traffic system, a man on the moon and vehicles exploring Mars, childhood immunization and hunger prevention programs, free and cheap public education from grade school through college, funding for police and fire departments, high-quality medical standards and a strong military.
I do have a problem with corrupt government, big (Bush II) or small (Grant). Corrupt government gives us "self-regulation" of Wall Street, 10% non-meat material in our processed meats, reckless approval of dangerous medicines, abstinence education-induced teen pregnancy epidemics, incompetent disaster relief contractors, politicians who get campaign donations from those same contractors, troops killed using faulty gear from incompetent defense contractors,politicians who owe fealty to their major donors (the recent Presidential campaign alone cost $4 billion. Three men pledged half a billion of it all by themselves. Try to get your man elected!), and refuse to demand investigation and prosecution (but check out Elizabeth Warren). And on, and on....
Just don't let your dislike of taxes blind you to the reason YOUR taxes are increased while you-know-who's are not....
Chucky, the attempt at sarcasm has failed you. Great try but it just isn’t working to cut me down. If you haven’t had coffee before 8:05 am what the heck time do you get up? I assume since you sympathize with the plight of the welfare class you keep their hours? And then it only took you 12 hours to think of a clever reply and do some more top notch research on the internet, which is probably is better than most students of our public school system today, that is a completely different subject.
DeleteI don’t think I can say it better Anonymous 2:44 AM. Very well put and right to the point of things.
Now Chucky I’m going to go against the blog administrators wish and get off subject here. I believe this story is more about higher taxes rather than the reason for a higher tax. Seems every direction we turn there is a new reason for tax increase. At the Federal level, the State level and at the local level more monies are need to feed the machine of Government. In our households we shift our spending monthly to meet the “front burner” demands. Thus we cut spending to cover other cost. I did tell my employer that my cost went up and I was going raise my expectations of him, he’s still laughing.
You say “It’s a lot easier to dump on the poor, believe me.” Okay I will believe you, does that include you? It’s great you want to be a good doer and help the poor. Many Miss America’s have the same dream, they also want to accomplish World Peace. I’m thinking you have a lot in common. although they probably look better in a bathing suit. As I see it only thing right now being dumped on the poor is government money, money that seems rather easy to get and hard to give up.
You think we should have equality via pillaging high income folks. I think higher income folks need loop holes closed. You think higher income folks are cheating the system and America people. I think they are using the rules of the system and proving jobs to folks that need them. See here Chucky, “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. You want punishment for earners and rewards for the lazy. I say take a look and how and why the earned and make sure laws are in place that are not abused. Then we need to take a look at how we help those “poor” advance in life. I think you are going to see many don’t want to advance and they are quite happy where they are in life. Why do I say that, because the ones that do want to advance find a way. Make something easy for most folks and the line will be out the door.
So for these reasons you will have your followers, the poor souls that just can’t do anything for themselves except have babies which increase that monthly check. I’m sure you look like Jesus to them. And then there will be my side of other the debate that says help those that need help but teach them to fish and they will eat. (I know you are big on the Bible so I threw that in.)
My advice to you is this. Instead of using the poor as a reason to tax that 1% you so hate, take a hard look at current laws on the books and expose those to the public. Fight for change that makes a difference not a diversion. Or are you no different from the poor souls you are fighting for as you really enjoy playing up the suffering role. Are you suffering?
To you point of spending four billion dollars on the election. Why is so much money spent for a job that pays $400,000 per year? The 1% can tell you that.
It’s 11:30AM, hopefully you have had your coffee by now. For your next assignment maybe you can explain why Vermont is on the decline of population.
Chuckie, so big government gave us the internet. This would mean they helped create Facebook, a large contributor to President Obama's re-election. Today we find out Facebook will pay no Federal or State Taxes and (get this) get millions in refunds. Isn't it amazing how many of the Presidents freinds seem to not pay or owe back taxes.
DeleteMy questions to you; 1. How is this George Bush's fault? 2. Didn't the President just complain about this sort of thing Tuesday evening when he was scolding the 1% for being evil? 3. Are you on Facebook? 4. What element of the Tea Party is behind this?
Nexst time your leaders Sen. Sanders or Leahy come to Vermont (if they even do anymore) maybe you can ask them when they will be doing something about all these loopholes. Don't ask them what can be done. Ask them when are they going to do something. Because we all know they both are not in office for the money or power, they're all about protecting Vermonters interest.
In this case you would not have to raise the taxrate on the CEO of Facebook (I believe GE fell in the same class last year) to get a few more tax bucks, just make sure the Company didn't use every loop hole to avoid taxes and of all things get a refund. Damn one percenters!
Don't you find it amazing that our leader (and I use that term loosely), whom is an architect of class warfare seems to benefit the most. While at the same time failing to change anything or even attempt to make those changes. Talk about deflecting. So while we all walk around hating our fellow man every politician does little to change laws that benefit themselves. Do you get it yet Chuckie? Sheep like you are fighting the Governments battles. And for what? Facebook?
Harry Byrd: Obama is NOT an architect of class warfare! Far from it, he is quite well wrapped in the Wall Street bubble. If he were into helping people like Springfield homeowners, he would not have put CEO bonuses and the $500 million dollar tax break for AmGen into the so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations. He would have appointed people like Eric Schneidermann, Elliot Spitzer and Bill Black. You really, really need to start reading about who's surrounding him. If you paid attention to what he does about taxation, you'd see how far it is from what he does.
DeleteWhen you talk about "politicians passing laws to benefit themselves," you're not talking about anybody who's represented Vermont for at least the past fifty years. That's too broad a brush to do any good. What you can do is talk with Bernie, Pat or Peter when they're around (and they all come around quite regularly) and ask them what it would take to reinvigorate the government's Inspectors General. If what they say doesn't make sense, report it here. Everybody here can figure it out.
By the way, the loopholes for Google, Exxon, et al. did not happen on Obama's watch. They actually started back in the early Fifties, accelerated greatly under Carter and thereafter, with Bush openly telling his wealthiest benefactors, "You're my base!" I suggest you read Jeff Madrick's "The Triumph of Wall Street and the Decline of America." You really need to open your eyes and your mind to what's defining your situation.
The tea baggers are the people who tell the government, "Keep your hands off my Medicare!" I don't believe they are amenable to reasonable discourse about politics.
oops should be "how far it is from what he says."
DeleteCG and the sewer rats continue to covet the wealth of others while bemoaning their own miserable lot in life. They are the proverbial dead weights that drag society down. For CG and his friends, everything should be a free ride, brought to them by the redistributed wealth of others, and they rationalize it all through their delusional fantasy of an egalitarian utopia. And in their warped minds, achieving utopia entails destroying the best medical delivery system in the modern world and replacing it with the waiting lines and second or third rate physicians that will remain after the best have fled a government dominated, bloated medical bureaucracy. Any veteran can tell you that the socialized medical model that has typified the military for years is barely effective at providing adequate care. But CG and his sewer rats will claim victory, because instead of having to exert themselves to climb higher up the economic ladder, they will have succeeded in lowering much of the rest of society to the fetid surroundings in which they languish, suckling at the teats of their mother government sow. It wouldn't have mattered if the machine shops had managed to survive to this day in Springfield, for if they had, the pathetic likes of unskilled and untalented CG and the sewer rats amidst the labor pool would have ultimately led to them having to shut down anyway for lack of effective human resources. CG and his kind continue to make Springfield and Vermont a laughing stock!
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 2:44-- Ignore the data, and you'll keep shooting yourself in the wallet. There's a name for that behavior.
ReplyDeleteData can be manipulated and I am sure there is data that disputes your data.
DeleteI believe it's the same name that applies to someone like CG who continues to rely on flawed and biased data to try and present his bogus argument! Hope CG's taken down all the mirrors in his house so he doesn't have to confront dishonesty in his own house (assuming he has one, that is).
DeleteChuckles, as someone professing to be so worldly and enlightened, what do you have to show for your superior judgment? Oh, and I loath excuses.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've learned, there's no substitute for hard work and sacrifice. That nothing long term is to be gained by rewarding parasites.
CG isn't worldly, he's just an angry and resentful small town loser with a chip on his shoulder becuase never made it and never will in a free enterprise economy. He cloaks himself in warped progressive theories that serve as a salve to his inferiority complex, but which ironically have proven to be the source of his own economic insecurity and lowly station in life.
DeleteAt least Chuck doesn't resort to name calling and personal attacks.
DeleteI might not always agree with him, but he has never once personally attacked someone in this space or spoken in a way that was disrespectful.
The same cannot be said of you kind sir.
Sticks and stones, Bubba, sticks and stones. Grow a thicker skin!
DeleteTo claim Chuckie doesn't resort to personal attacks is disingenuous. Ol' Chuckie regularly implies that those who are critical of his lies and falsehoods are diminished. Just read above where he writes "Ignore the data, and you'll keep shooting yourself in the wallet. There's a name for that behavior." 11:07 just lacks the ability to discern such nuances!
DeleteWhat the various Anonymice state here is we ought not hold out hope for the possibility of potential. An ignorant cowherd whose ten-year old keeps jumping against the wind, in their opinion, is but a dolt who ought not have schooling or access to affordable medical care or good nutrition-- and they would deny Isaac Newton the education that made him the giant of science in his time. How many Newtons, Einsteins or James Hartnesses are we smothering when we dismiss their parents? How many honest shopkeepers and clerks?
DeleteThe secret to running a banana Republic successfully is to have the lower orders fighting among themselves-- observe the hatred of the mythical "welfare chiselers" which is so great as to blind them to the fact that they are paying an extra $48 billion in taxes, or that three men stood ready to spend half a billion dollars to see that the man they wanted as President would ruin Social Security for them.
It's crabs in a basket (by the way, New England crabs must be different from Georgia crabs)-- let the bile engendered by forty friggin' years of barely staying above water (or actually sinking, if you've been averaging less than $55,000 a year in Vermont) drive you to drag down your fellow man-- yay for the Banana Republic!
Attacks against me would be well-founded IF they were based on data; but they aren't-- and only people who don't look at the data ought to feel that I'm engaging in a personal attack against them. As for my income and attitude toward the Paris Hilton class, I am comforted by the fact that I am on the same side as was the Warren Buffet of his time, Voltaire, who identified in the French aristocracy what cost them their heads in the Revolution.
One of the more respected substitutes for hard work and sacrifice is being born to wealth, which is how 90% of the wealthiest in America (think: three generations of Bushes, the Koch Brothers, Al Gore, Jack Kennedy, Bill Gates and Paris Hilton) made theirs.
DeleteAt the other end of the scale, many of us like to sneer at the hard work and sacrifice shown by the 40% of the welfare chiseling Texas families living in poverty that are working at two or more jobs.
CG and his sewer rats are intent on lowering the bar so far that they can slither across it on their bellies to collect their government handouts!
ReplyDeleteThe nitwit's claims - AND THEN THE TRUTH.
ReplyDelete1. All traditional medical services will be available to you - AS LONG AS YOU'RE WILLING TO WAIT FOR AN EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF TIME JUST BE SEEN BY A LOWER QUALITY PROVIDER.
2. You won't have to put off going to the doctor when you are sick or injured - YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO PUT OFF RECEIVIG THE CRITICAL CARE (SURGERY OR OTHER RATIONED TREATMENT) THAT YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED PROMPTLY.
3. There will be no deductibles - JUST HIGHER TAXES THAT WILL WREAK DIRE ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON THE OVERALL ECONOMY, NOT JUST HEALTHCARE.
4. There will be a standard co-pay - THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING IT (SORT OF LIKE THE MINIMUM WAGE OF HEALTHCARE, THE BUREAUCRATS WILL JUST KEEP RAISING IT).
5. You won't be excluded for a pre-existing condition - BUT YOU ALSO WON'T RECEIVE THE LEVEL OF CARE OF MEDICATION YOU'LL NEED TO TREAT SUCH A CONDITION.
6. You won't pay more for a pre-existing condition - BUT EVERYONE ELSE WILL PAY MORE IN TAXES FOR YOUR PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
7. You'll use the doctors you want to - THERE JUST WON'T BE AS MANY DOCTORS TO CHOOSE FROM, SO SURE, YOU'LL GET THE PICK OF A SHRINKING POOL OF LOWER QUALITY PROVIDERS (THOSE WHO REMAIN IN THE PROFESSIONAL WILL BE THE ONES THAT ACCEPT SUFFOCATING BUREAUCRACIES THAT CONSTRAIN THEIR ABILITIES TO DELIVER QUALITY CARE.
8. You and your doctor will determine what to do for you - A DETERMINATION THAT WILL HAVE TO COME FROM THE INCREASINGLY LIMITED CHOICES OF TREATMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL INTELLIGENSIA WILL PERMIT YOU TO CHOOSE FROM.
9. If you lose your job, you and your family will still be covered - BY AN INFERIOR MEDICAL SYSTEM.
10. Medical costs for the whole system will go down about 25% - THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL. IF YOU BELIEVE THIS ONE, PLEASE SEEK PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT TODAY, BEFORE OBAMACARE ELIMINATES YOUR ABIILITY TO DO SO.
I understand your points, but I just have one question, isn't the current health care system "wreaking dire economic effects on the overall economy?".
DeleteAs a small business owner my health care expenses are easily the fastest growing expense, on average they have increased between 8-12% over the past ten years. At this pace I will not be able to afford to offer my employees health insurance in the future.
I will willing to try something new.
You should know better. Never try a new government program, especially one that will hold dominion over the vital decisions that will literally enable government bureaucrats and their complacent, lethargic, mind numbed robots to hold your life in the balance. The reason your health care costs have escalated so much is the very result of government intervention in the healthcare marketplace. Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug legislation, FDA, OSHA, etc. have all imposed upward forces on costs. Now you want to reward the government idiocracy by handing it even more power over the medical care that you and your employees will recieve? What government program has ever lowered costs? Please enlighten us. Sure hope you're a savvier businessman than you are a gullible consumer of government propaganda!
DeleteAnonymous at 11:22-- If you read any summary of the Hsiao report to the Vermont legislature, you will see all your refutations are false. I hate to do this, but I feel I must identify you as the famous and well-paid fudflinger for Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, Jeff Wennberg.
DeleteAnonymous at 1:17-- Au contraire, as soon as the ACA was passed, California health insurers raised their rates 27 to 73 percent. The sort of thing you argue is the same thing that was used to argue against Social Security's passage in the Depression.
oops, should be 37, not 73....
DeleteChuckie, you're as clueless at shilling for socialism as you are at identifying posters to this site! What a rube! That you would award any more credit to a "report" that was commissioned by a state government intent on imposing socialized medicine on its ciitizens reveals your total lack of objectivity in such matters. The Hsiao report merely provides the state legislature with an excuse to proceed to impose their own version of a self-licking ice cream cone that will entitle them to control upwards of 20% of the economy. That's a lot of political appointments and government jobs for their listless friends. So enough with the altruism. The real motivations behind this are clear.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's another amusing note: The report describes Dr. Hsiao as "...a leading authority in health care financing for more than three decades and the World Bank regards him as the world’s premier authority on national health insurance programs. Dr. Hsiao played a leading role in the development of the United States Medicare and Medicaid Programs and national health insurance during the Nixon and Carter Administrations..."
Wow, this guy is one of the architects for the train wreck that has become Medicare and Medicaid, yet the diehard socialists are placing his latest work on a pedestal because it tells the story (and it is just that, a fantastical story) that they want to hear and sell to the public.
Chuckie, you and the Vermont Workers Center (that's another amusing label - Workers? Really?) just go ahead and continue to drink the kool aid and dream on in envy over others' property and assets, thinking that someday you'll just be able to help yourself to all that wealth. Do so and you'll continue to be the emblematic economic cellar dweller, hoping that some day, your ship will come in. The only problem with that is that sinking ships like the one you're on never do come in!
Harry Byrd-- Data drive it all-- in terms of quality of care, freedom from medical conditions, life span and value obtained for the money spent, we rank just above Slovenia, which is #38. I'd rather see the US be #1, and right now it looks like Vermont is the only state in the Union which isn't owned by the health care/pharma outfits.
ReplyDeleteIf you studied both Medicare and Medicaid, you'd at least be exposed to the information which shows their flaws-- and both are profit-driven: 1) Fee for service, which encourages too much testing (and usually against the doctor's judgment, but she/he is driven by the bookkeepers to overcharge); 2) the drive for the insurers and HMO's to make a profit and for the non-profit ones, like Vermont's CIGNA and BCBS, to reward their executives extremely well (how'd you like to make $2 million as your retirement present?); 3) the greed of those same parties as they take over the administration of a government program and drive up the administrative costs (2% for Medicare Part A, which the government runs, 9-11% for Medicare Part B, which it does not, and Medicare Part D which forbids thed government to negotiate lower drug prices and has a "doughnut hole in coverage which created a whole new "doughnut hole" insurance industry.
I'm curious about what you have for medical coverage. Thanks to a union, I have great coverage even though I'm retired. And thanks to the government, I have Medicare, the VA and Medicaid in the wings as well. Everybody in America should have at least as good health care coverage as I have. And I have a feeling you have as good a deal as I do, but you don't want to share it.
oops, should have been addressed to anonymous at 11:07, not Harry Byrd
DeleteAnonymous at 10:41, what you learned wasn't enough. Economists such as Joel Blinder, Andrew Hacker and Paul Krugman have published studies proving that the income inequality in America is not only just about the worst in the industrialized nations-- even worse than in China-- but also blocks upward mobility severely. You may continue to believe that if you wish, but unless you happen to be in the top 20%, you will be hurting your children's prospects. Sorry about that...
ReplyDeleteHarry Byrd at 2/18/13, 6:08 AM: There just might be a problem with, instead of posting about what they know, "more are posting here based on opinion of what they see and hear."
ReplyDeleteWe all can see the world is flat and the sun moves around it. But it's not true.
We all hear that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Socialist who intends to destroy Wall Street, but it's not true.
So, it would be better to write about things we know. For instance, tell me how you feel about the fact that the quintile that averages $34,000 a year pays 10.4% in total taxes, while the 1% that averages $782,000 pays only 8%, given that 90% of that 1% was born into their income and did not earn it through "hard work and sacrifice?" How does that tie into America as the land of opportunity, when economists have proven that great income inequality throttles chances for individual success in moving up the income ladder?
If you have data to support your beliefs, so much the better. If you don't, how do you know people with an agenda hostile to your best interests are not playing on your feelings?
Chuckie, for the umteenth time. CLOSE THE LOOP HOLES THAT ALLOW THIS. Do you get? CHANGE THE LAWS! Stop bowing down to the Berines, Pat's and Peter's. But will that happen? NO! Why? We've been over this! The same folks pointing out the problems and creating class warfare refuse to do anything about it. Yet they keep preaching it to saps that suck it all up.
DeleteSecondly facts are based on facts. You can't change them (well maybe except for you) but opinions are based on common sense and perception. Image that, having enough common sense to form an opinion of your own. Your comments above are those of an idiot and assumes all folks are dumb. To repeat what I said in an earlier post, most folks post here based on their opinion, that is why it is a opinion based blog. Why would a person trying to act so smart play so dumb?
Data is based on information entered within certain time frames. Depending on your needs that data can certainly be misused. And you my friend know that better than anyone on this blog.
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere!
Delete1. What are the loopholes that we need to close, Harry Byrd?
2. And how should we go about doing it?