Guest MINDSETTER™ Peter Costa: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
Monday, August 06, 2012
My name is Peter Costa, Jr. and I’m running for State Representative in District 67 (Barrington, Warren) because I believe Rhode Island’s future can and will be exceptional once again. I am energetic, hardworking, and most importantly accountable. For too many years the people of District 67 have been represented by a Providence insider who missed 42% of all votes taken in 2011 (missed 355 votes including the $8 Billion budget vote).
As a lifelong resident of the Ocean State, I know Rhode Islanders want new ideas, a new vision and new results for a better future. On my first day as Representative in January, I will lead a new initiative to ensure that our laws give every Rhode Islander the opportunity to prosper. My number one priority is to change policy to create a pro-growth, pro-jobs economy for all Rhode Islanders. America’s Industrial Revolution began along the banks of the Blackstone River with Samuel Slater who undoubtedly knew - as we know today - that the Rhode Island entrepreneurial spirit should not be stifled by the heavy hand of government.
If we elect legislators who understand how changes in public policy can spur economic growth, together we’ll lead the country in our job growth statistics, not our unemployment rate and debt/GDP ratio. With new legislators and a mandate for growth and tax reform, we will create a business environment in Rhode Island that makes us competitive again with our New England neighbors. I am running for the General Assembly because I understand that manufacturing, tourism, hospitality and healthcare are our leading industries and they will help drive our economic recovery and create new jobs for Rhode Islanders.
I have visited over 1,400 homes and a number of businesses in Barrington and Warren and I hear a clear message: “Make our government more efficient and accountable so our state can prosper once again!” I have also seen first-hand the damage this prolonged recession has had on families in our community and they need our help. Therefore, we must provide the most vital services to our residents while rebuilding our economy.
In 2011, Rhode Island ranked last in the nation for business competitiveness and 1,265 more people left Rhode Island than established a residency here. Let’s take a big step in the right direction: cut waste in our state government, lower taxes for our residents and their businesses, and re-establish Rhode Island as a great place for public education. Let’s get started on the great Rhode Island comeback with smart, accountable, and common sense government.
Thank you for your support on November 6th!
Peter Costa is a Republican candidate for State Rep. in District 67.
Related Articles
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Gregg Amore: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Sean Gately: Why I’m Running for State Senate
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Sam Lovett: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Mark Stoutzenberger: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Laura Pisaturo: Why I’m Running for State Senate
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Jon Restivo: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Keith Anderson: Why I’m Running for State Representative
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Jim Haldeman: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Dean Fachon: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
- Guest MINDSETTER™ Anthony Giarrusso: Why I’m Running for State Rep.
Comments:
P Diaz
9:06am on Monday, August 06, 2012
Where's Joe?
Samuel Bell
2:40pm on Monday, August 06, 2012
This article is remarkably devoid of any concrete ideas. A certain level of empty pandering is typical of politicians, but this introduction takes saying nothing even further than most. Everyone supports cutting waste, lowering some taxes, and improving public education. The difference is that different politicians have different ideas of what constitutes government waste, whose taxes should be lowered, and how we should improve public education.
So please tell us more about your policies. Currently, sky-high sales and property taxes mean that the bottom 20% pay a cumulative tax rate of 11.9%, while the top 1% only pay 5.6%. Would you favor raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for lowering regressive sales and property taxes? Would you favor restoring state aid to municipalities? Would you favor reducing the corporate tax rate on small businesses? Would you favor exempting small businesses from property taxes and compensating the municipalities for lost revenue? Would you favor eliminating bridge tolls, hotel taxes, restaurant taxes, and other taxes that have been shown to be especially bad for the economy? What government waste would you cut? How would you improve public education?
will wall
7:14pm on Monday, August 06, 2012
Glad to support you peter! Someone young and fresh is an amazing idea to bring to the area I grew up in. The leaders of Rhode Island are old-fashioned and ineffective. They are stuck in their old methodology that simply does not work any more. I know peter's idea will get our Barrington/warren moving to great places again.
By the way Samuel I just would like to know the source on where you got your numbers. Take a look at this wall street journal article written today on the tax brackets in the US. Much different than you would think.(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444246904577571042249868040.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)
I think a great idea is to stop looking at where the money is coming from and more to where it is being utilized.
Keep up the good work Peter. You have my vote!
Samuel Bell
2:58am on Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Happy to give my sources, Will! My tax numbers come from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf. I was referring to cumulative state and local taxation in Rhode Island, not on a national level. These numbers actually probably underestimate how much higher a rate the poor pay than the 1% because they do not include the unemployment insurance tax or some of the recent sales and property tax hikes.
On a federal level, taxation is not as regressive as it is on a state and local level. While many middle class families do pay a somewhat higher rate than the wealthy, the poor also pay less than the middle class.
The myth that the rich pay a higher tax rate than the poor comes from only looking at income tax. But income taxes make up less than a third of all taxation. Payroll, property, and sales taxes compose the majority of taxes, and those taxes are all very regressive—meaning the poorer you are the higher the rate you pay.
On a federal level, there are two main taxes, the payroll tax, which is regressive, and the income tax, which is progressive. Over time, the income tax has become very slightly more progressive, but because it has been cut relative to the payroll tax, total federal taxation has become much more regressive. Although it tries to hide it behind excessive jargon, the Wall St. Journal article you linked to does admit that this is the case. Here’s how the WSJ puts it: “Over the past 30 years, the weight of federal taxes has shifted from the income tax to the payroll tax, which is less progressive. As a result, CBO says, "the extent to which taxes lessened the dispersion of household income" has been reduced. Academic analyses that zero in on the growing share of income going to the top 0.1% reinforce that.” This is just a fancy way of saying that a significant chunk of the tax burden has been shifted from the wealthy to the middle class.