Two Tax Steps Forward, One Tax Step Back
---
The tax man giveth, and the tax man taketh away...
--How many politicians, especially those up for re-election this year, will go out of their way to remind us that "sales taxes went down" without any mention that part of the sales tax actually went up?
--Notice how a "temporary" tax increase suddenly became a little less temporary. When is it ever otherwise?
--Here's a radical idea: Have the people who use public transportation pay for it. If the poor can't afford it ($2 max), then subsidize them directly through discounts rather than indirectly through an MTA subsidy (fueled by a sales tax, which I always hear is "regressive" and "anti-poor" -- go figure).
--Here's another radical idea: If you absolutely must tax Peter to subsidize Paul, then how about -- instead of a sales tax -- you implement a taxi tax? Those who opt for the "luxury" mode of transportation -- and create congestion and pollution in the process -- would thereby underwrite those who don't. Wouldn't that make more sense? Why muck around with the sales tax? (Oh right, I already answered that question.)
New Yorkers will save a little money in taxes as of Wednesday.Some hasty stitches:
In 2003, the state and the city both added temporary tax increases adding up to 3/8 of a percent, but those temporary taxes ended with the end of May on Tuesday.
Unfortunately, a special provision in the state budget will offset some of the money. It introduces a special sales tax to fund the MTA.
People in New York City and nearby counties will pay the surcharge of 1/8 of a percentage point starting Wednesday.
The old rate in the city was 8.625 percent. The new rate will be 8.375 percent.
--How many politicians, especially those up for re-election this year, will go out of their way to remind us that "sales taxes went down" without any mention that part of the sales tax actually went up?
--Notice how a "temporary" tax increase suddenly became a little less temporary. When is it ever otherwise?
--Here's a radical idea: Have the people who use public transportation pay for it. If the poor can't afford it ($2 max), then subsidize them directly through discounts rather than indirectly through an MTA subsidy (fueled by a sales tax, which I always hear is "regressive" and "anti-poor" -- go figure).
--Here's another radical idea: If you absolutely must tax Peter to subsidize Paul, then how about -- instead of a sales tax -- you implement a taxi tax? Those who opt for the "luxury" mode of transportation -- and create congestion and pollution in the process -- would thereby underwrite those who don't. Wouldn't that make more sense? Why muck around with the sales tax? (Oh right, I already answered that question.)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- It's Called What?
- Bloomberg: Ban Campaign Contributions by Businesses
- Still Think Bloomberg's Not a "Typical Politician"?...
- NYC's Tax-and-Spend Microcosm
- Two Tax Steps Forward, One Tax Step Back
- More Election-Year Shenanigans in NYC
- A Different Kind of Water Torture
- Anybody But Bloomberg: "Be Glad We Don't Take It All"
Posted by KipEsquire on
1 June 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
