Monday, May 18, 2009

What is the antonym of "analysis"? ITEP Has Published That

Holy tax ripoff, Batman!

The amazing shills at Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy delivered this still born baby, right here.

Wow, that is one appallingly ideological analysis. If the state government were worried about the middle class, they wouldn't have socked it to them so hard over the last 17 years.

In 1992, MO state spending was $16.5billion (in 2009 dollars). The population was 5.2 million. So, in real dollars per capita, they were spending about $3,100 per capita.

In 2009, MO state spending was $25.1billion (in 2009 dollars). The population is now about 5.9 million. So, in real dollars per capita, the might MO state government is spending $4,250 per capita.

Remember, that is controlling for inflation, and controlling for population. MO has increased spending by nearly 40%, over and above any conceivable underlying explanation for growth. I don't know the comparison across states, but that is a truly gigantic increase. No wonder so many businesses have left Missouri; it's a freakin' banana republic!

Over and over in that ITEP document, the "analysts" say that cutting taxes will "cost" the state money for "needed expenditures." Two questions: How do you figure that letting people keep money they earned is a "cost"? The money belongs to the people, not the state. Cutting taxes is the opposite of a cost.

Second, is ANY expenditure unneeded? This document is clearly written by a bunch of shills who make their living off the people's taxes. (And you know that they just exactly...what the facts is).

It's possible that some middle class people will have their taxes increased slightly as a result of the Fair Tax legislation. But I would hope that having a chance of being employed by a private company, which might consider moving to Missouri if its tax structure were less like Nicaragua's, would be more of a concern for the enlightened state government.

5 comments:

prisonrodeo said...

Did you just call a bill sponsored by Ed Emery "enlightened"?

Did you just call for cutting expenditures in a state that already has one of the lowest per capita expenditure levels (and, for that matter, tax burdens) in the country?

And finally: What's up with the love for regressive taxes? Even Adam Smith was no fan...

Tom said...

The best aspect of the FairTax to me is its worst aspect from the point of view of socialists (and by "socialist," I mean fascist, of course). The bare simplicity of the plan eliminates the (much used) tool for social engineering through selective taxation. Currently, doing what our masters approve of gets you lower taxes; going against their wisdom means higher taxes.

In partial answer to prisonrodeo, you can't call a tax "regressive" just because it punishes achievement LESS than the current scheme. ...and in anticipation of your shocked rejoinder, yes the "rich" do spend their money: If you earn money, then you spend it (sooner or later) or you give it away (on purpose, or when you die). Even if you convert it to cash and burn it -- that is giving it away in the same way that Bernanke steals money by creating more out of nothing.

MaxSpeak said...

I haven't analyzed MO spending. In re: state gov spending, it helps to separate Medicaid to get a grip on what is going on. Medicaid spending increases more rapidly than everything else, including GDP and revenues. You might find that putting health care aside, real spending per person didn't increase faster than state GDP. In that case (which is common), the profligacy such as it is can be attributed to the health care sector.

Anonymous said...

Tom - a flat tax is regressive. Since it punishes the average person more than the current system (not punishing less than the current system for rich people).
I know your ideology states that everyone who really tried and worked hard should be rich. therefore those on average or low incomes deserve their fate. Newsflash - not everyone can be Bill Gates (due to distribution of intelligence, opportunity etc). So why penalise them?

Also social engineering you mention - what is wrong with helping people save for retirement or own a house. Both socially desirable things and remember you live in society. You are not an island.

Matt G said...

Hi,
What a strange post. Complete disjunction between the blown-up rhetoric you use to describe how awful the ITEP analysis is ("shills," "antonym of analysis") and the virtually content-free criticism you back these insults up with.
I don't see any substantive criticism of the analysis in your post at all-- you're just criticizing the ITEP report's choice of words in describing a tax cut. Call it a "cost" to government or a "benefit" to taxpayers, whatever pleases you. But this choice says exactly squat about the quality of the analysis. What ITEP's done here is, I'd say, exactly what Missouri voters ought to be able to know in order to evaluate this plan: to figure out whether the tax rate advertised in the bill would be enough to remain "revenue neutral." The ITEP report says it pretty clearly wouldn't be. To assert that their report somehow doesn't count because they don't use the rhetorical words you'd like them to use is, frankly, not a legitimate criticism of the analysis. If you have a substantive criticism of the report, you should make it. You haven't. Do the numbers look wrong to you? If so, why? That's the sort of thing you could constructively say. Again, you haven't.
Parenthetically, the official fiscal note for the bill says the same thing-- the advertised tax rate would not be enough to remain revenue neutral. Are you gonna argue that the legislative staffers writing the fiscal note are lying too? If so, are you going to point to anything specific in the analysis that seems inaccurate, or are you just going to give them the ITEP treatment and call them names?