| | Advanced Search

 

Fox’s Rival Calls for New Economic Model—Fox's Rival Calls for New Economic Model

New Legislation Would Raise Taxes On Some Low-Income Housing in RI—Sponsors say they owe their municipality the hard…

Side of the Rhode: Who’s Hot and Who’s Not in RI Politics?—Who's up, who's down?...

NEW: RI State Council of Churches Responds to BSA Gay Scout Policy—Says more can be done, though...

Friday Financial Five—May 24th, 2013—What you need to know for the week...

Former RI High School Baseball Standouts Starring at URI—Major contributions...

B’s Sloppy Play Gives Rangers Game 4—Boston still leads series 3-1

URI’s Mazze on Economic Forecast: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back—URI's Mazze on Economic Forecast: Two Steps Forward,…

King Strikes Out 11 to Keep Hendricken Baseball Undefeated—Hendricken stays perfect...

Report: Gist Misses Most Achievement Gap Target Numbers—see where the schools are falling short

 
 

Travis Rowley: Rhode Islanders, Pay Your Own Damn Taxes

Saturday, March 10, 2012

 

Local property taxes in Rhode Island are among the highest in the nation. And it has little to do with what progressive Democrats claim. That is, that recent tax cuts for the state’s high-income earners are the cause of your skyrocketing property tax bill – that “the rich” are not paying their “fair share.”

Here’s what Democratic politicians don’t want you to realize: High property taxes are due to the fact that your town spends a lot of money – mostly on its unionized government employees and their depleted pension funds. And union-Democrats, from atop Smith Hill, are the ones forcing your town to undergo those expenses.

If you were confused whenever former Republican Governor Don Carcieri asked General Assembly Democrats to give cities and towns the “flexibility” and the “tools” they need to balance their budgets, well, this is what Carcieri was talking about: The abolition of unfunded mandates forced upon your local governments.

You see, Democrats can’t run from this one simple reality: Government spending is what necessitates the need for taxes. And high government spending is what necessitates the need for high taxes – no matter who is forced to pay them.

And, in fact, if nothing else, Rhode Island has served to prove that no matter whose heads high taxes fall upon, the poor and middle class will always be the ones who suffer the most.

Tax the Rich

While organized progressive Democrats lobby the General Assembly to raise the income tax rate for people earning over $250,000 per year (from 5.99% to 9.99%), perhaps it’s time to inspect and question the logistical and moral foundation of such a policy.

Progressives insist that allowing a rich man, who lives several towns over from you, to keep his own money is what causes increases to your property tax bill. And this somehow amounts to a “transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.”

Even if we accept the progressive premise that tax cuts have resulted in local property tax hikes, the fact of the matter is that your bill was always that high. It’s just that someone else was always paying a portion of your bill. Someone else was always paying for your town’s amenities in order to suppress your property taxes.

Ask yourself this: Do you now feel entitled to other people’s money?

If so, perhaps it’s true that the entitlement mentality is not confined within the welfare state. And perhaps Jon Meacham of Newsweek Magazine was right: “We Are All Socialists Now.”

But now ask yourself this: Why should someone else be forced to pay your property taxes? By what moral principle do you justify having your local tax bill socialized?

If you listen closely, Democrats tell us all the time how they justify a progressive income tax. As Democratic Mayor of Pawtucket Don Grebien recently stated, “We can’t keep strangling lower and middle-income Rhode Islanders with more and more property taxes while we continue to give tax breaks to those who need them the least.” Or, one might say, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

These are the people who insist they’re not socialists.

But, of course, they are. Most of them will deny it. And, quite frankly, many of them don’t even know it. But the fact remains that most Democrats have largely embraced the socialist philosophy.

Democrats will ridicule the idea that they advance the socialist agenda, even as we divulge the fact that Karl Marx himself advocated for a progressive income tax within his Communist Manifesto; and even as we witness members of the International Socialist Organization show up to almost every major union rally, holding signs that read, “Tax the Rich.” Invariably, alongside them are union and Democratic activists holding signs that read – yup, you guessed it – “Tax the Rich.”

The Progressive Plan

Proponents of this tax hike have tried to alleviate concerns by agreeing to have “the tax rate…go down one percent for each one percent reduction in the state's unemployment rate, until the rate returns to 5.99 percent.”

Not only is this formula completely arbitrary (and stupid), the fact remains that raising taxes on people making over $250,000 per year is the very action that will prevent the unemployment rate from dropping.

Are we witnessing economic ignorance, or adherence to communist instruction?

Within the Communist Manifesto Marx suggested that in order to hasten the socialist revolution, it would be necessary to initiate “despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production,” which includes “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

At first, Marx explained, these measures will “appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

The Marxist design has always been to purposely devastate the private business sector, creating economic conditions that are so desperate that they would persuade enough people to approve of further assaults on the rich.

Knowingly or not, Rhode Island Democrats have thoroughly followed Marx’s instruction. If enough free-market Republicans are not soon elected, then our hopes will be forced to rest upon the sudden reform and enlightenment of Ocean State Democrats.

God help us.

Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is chairman of the RI Young Republicans and a consultant for the Barry Hinckley Campaign for US Senate.

If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.

 

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

Jeremy Soninjer

the progressive income tax was always a Marxist scheme. Just look where the Feds are today. Almost half the country doesn't pay any federal income taxes. That's how severely the tax has evolved. This is a very dangerous way for a democracy to establish its tax structure.

Michael Trenn

Great article, Mr. Rowley. These Communists in the GA have forgottes that the "rich" are mobile, and can easily move away from their Jumped-up authority. Rep. Trillo pointed out that one can move to Swansea or Seekonk and get the RI amenities without the taxes. In addition, How many state Retirement checks go to the Villages in Florida? Finally, was it the Governot's mother or mother-in-law who moved to Florida to get away from the taxes? Do as I say, and not as I do.

Michael Trenn

forgotten, sorry

Chris Haskins

Fair taxing the rich isn't socialism, take a history course

Mike Govern

Thanks Chris..care to explain? Fair to who?

Chris Haskins

Fair as in fair math.

Joseph Bernstein

The Gumpster bragged how his mother in law spent exactly 181 days a year in FL so she could freeload up here for the rest of the year.It was on a 10 Newsconference show before the election.He smirked about it-a##hole that he is.

Michael Trenn

I took plenty of history courses; at Classical and at Providence College. I learned that this country was founded upon the principles espoused by the Constitution, which limits the scope and purview of Government so that the individual can thrive. It is you who needs to study history, Mr. Haskins.

Chris Haskins

My comment was directed at the author of the article, not to your comment (which I've just now read which reeks of hyperbole). The historical perspective will show that tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is relatively very, very low. Repeal Bush tax cuts.

tom brady

Hey Joe, in a few years i'll be heading south as well.

Tom Kenney

Mr. Rowley lays the responsibility for higher local property taxes directly on municipalities over-spending. He conveniently skips over the fact that the shortfalls in local budgets are a direct result of the state government balancing (or attempting to balance) its budget by cutting or considerably reducing long-standing aid to cities and towns.

When these cuts were made there was nowhere for local governments to go for the money they lost other than to the local taxpayer. And while identifying and eliminating wasteful spending is always a good thing to do, not all spending by municipalities is "wasteful" or "unnecessary".

His rationale is akin to me cutting off my kid's allowance and then complaining that I have to give him money for his school lunch.

Jeremy Soninjer

Wrong, Tom. It's akin to you cutting off your kid's allowance, only to have your kid suddenly tell you that he's ENTITLED to having you pay for his school lunch.

Rowley didn't conveniently skip over the fact that state aid has been cut. He entirely admitted it, but then asked if RIers feel entitled to other people's money (state aid via progressive income tax).

Tom Kenney

@Jeremy Soninjer:

And you think that by getting paid what I am as a firefighter in Providence and collecting my reitrement after 33 years of service is acting ENTITLED?

In other words, do you think that I shouldn't be paid a decent wage or earn a decent retirement just because it's the taxpayer who pays the bill?

Mike Govern

Actually, yes. Do the math. FF can retire in 20 yearsv and run through what they put in in about 10 years. Thus we pay you for the next 30 years from our pockets. That!s a real good deal. Remember the prov ff that retired with at 67k pension and now drawa 195k? That's entitlement and corruption on display. What did you put in? What do you get? Let us know and we!ll see....

Mike Govern

Chris...math is fair? I though it just is. Please share with us why successful people need to pay more than others. From each according to his ability? Btw, now they are the Obama tax cuts.

Tom Kenney

@ Mike McGovern:

That’s right. Use the numbers of the highest Providence retiree (who is a retired Chief of Department) who all of us on the department think is collecting "at least" 2 times what he should be, and paint us all with that brush.

Or…use the numbers from someone who (theoretically) put in the absolute lowest number of years paying into the system at the lowest possible retirement age (which has already been changed to reflect another 5 years before being able to collect a pension), and paint us all with that brush.

I’m not retired yet but I’ve paid in 9.5% of my base pay (overtime is never used to calculate a Prov pension) for over 31 years. If I retired now I’d collect approximately $45K per year. And I’m a Captain.

I’ll probably collect that for 15-20 years before I die.

Highway robbery? …or a fair pension? Remember, I won’t be collecting SS. My Prov pension will be my sole source of income.

Jeremy Soninjer

I'm not sure why you started talking about your pay and pension as a firefighter. This article is about taxing the rich, and whether or not RIers feel ENTITLED to other people paying their town property taxes.

Jeremy Soninjer

Actually, the entitlement mentality is very thick within the public union community. For some reason, government employees think they have a right to be a cop, teacher, or firefighter. Taxpayers should pay what they want to pay for public services. A government FOR and BY the people, anyone?? If someone doesn't like the pay structure for a government job, then just don't take that job. You don't have a right to a government job.

Mike Govern

Spot on Jeremy.... The challenge is union workers all work together in an echo chamber--each telling the other how bad they have it, it's not their fault, they deserve it--and then begin to actually believe it. An overgeneralization; I should say most, not all.

Tom. OK--you'll run through your pension "investment" in 11 years. If you get medical, make it 9. So you'll be on the public dole for many, many years. If you don't get SS, then you didn't pay into it and got that money in your paycheck. Good for you. I wish I had that choice. And yes, I made an example of the top paid retiree--but if you look at that list, more than 1/2 are FF's.

Tom Kenney

"ON THE PUBLIC DOLE"

What a laugh. You see things only the way you want. You're only considerring my contributions - not the interest on that investment for over 30 years - not the money the City matched.

If I were in a defined contribution plan the City would have paid into my plan and never seen the money again, so why are you taking that away from my "entitlement"?

Also, yes ... I never paid into SS ... BUT, the City (taxpayers) never had to pay into SS (or Medicare)on my behalf either.

Again, apparently you're ignorant on the subject of our pension plan because you continually bring up the top retirees even though they are only a tiny percentage of Prov police and fire retirees. Either you're ignorant to the whole picture or you're deliberately attempting to falsely convict all of the system's pensioners in the court of public opinion.

Mike Govern

I don't have to prove anything Tom. The current financial crisis says it all.

BTW, I understand your pain. It is tough to plan on something and have it evaporate. The Airline pilots had a real good lesson in this--you and I--and I'm in the mix too--are not alone. The pensions may have been affordable IF the cities and towns matched as they were supposed to--but other priorities got in the way and most didn't. That and compound COLAS...

Tom Kenney

So, with about a two-year window otherwise, the wealthiest taxpayers should be taxed at the lowest federal rate ever AND RI should lower the 1%'s state taxes even further??

Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to tax them out of all their money but what Mr. Rowley is preaching doesn't add up at all - unless, of course, you're one of (or close to) the 1%ers.

Mike Govern

Yea...it stinks. But giving the clowns even more won't fix the pension problem. Too many people in the wagon, not enough pulling. We have made mediocrity a virtue and success a crime that must be punished. Sad

Tom Kenney

"clowns"?? who are the "clowns" you speak of? Working people who have been (or will be) duked out of their pensions because politicians neglected their commitments??

Mike Govern

Politicians, of course.

Drew M

Honest Question here...Tom, why do you think other people should pay your property taxes? Seriously, just trying to understand.

I'm assuming you feel this way because you mentioned that what rowley is saying doesn't make any sense. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Tom Kenney

@Drew M;

I don't think they should.

However, I don't buy a single word of this guy's article. He is the one that draws the lines from a state income tax to property taxes. While there is a connection between the two a reasonable person can't state that people in Providence are asking people in E greenwich to pay their (the Prov landowner) property taxes.

He (Rowley) sees himself as the light of reason and intelligence and truth. He seems to be saying that even if they're not reasonable enough or intelligent enough or honest enough to face the facts - they are socialists!!How enlightened!!

In my opinion he is the one who is being intellectually dishonest. He seems to make the case that there are two types of political philosophy – capitalists and socialists. How ridiculous.

What ever happened to compromise? We can have a capitalistic society with some social (not socialistic) programs to help take care of those members of society who are less fortunate – for whatever reason.

Drew M

Okay, well then I just want to point something out that is being entirely missed here---- You and Rowley agree. You don't think that other people should pay your property taxes. And neither does Rowley (neither do I, by the way!)

BUT, the progressive Democrats are arguing that taxes should be raised on other people in order to lower your property taxes (or as rowley says, "socialize" your property taxes. Which I think is a perfectly accurate term. Maybe you don't. Whatever.) Rowley didn't draw that line. The Democrats did. That's exactly what they're arguing for.

You and Rowley are on the same team. Just thought I'd point that out.

Jeremy Soninjer

Also, the rich aren't paying income taxes at the "lowest federal rate ever"...Reagan lowered the top rate to 28%. And at one point the rate was 0%. Because we didn't even have a fed income tax until the early 1900s. FYI.

Tom Kenney

Drew:

I'm not on the same side as Rowley.

And...his talk, and your talk about socialism is an over-used and laughable description of people who think the rich should pay a higher share.

Mike Govern

I agree it!s not laughable. Please explain why those who work hard and made good or better choices should be taxed at a higher rate? Why should I pay more so you can pay less? Why do I have to pay over 100k in taxes and have to pay full tuition to get my kids through college while the single mom on welfare kids get a free ride?

Drew M

Well, it's not "laughable"....as rowley showed, KARL MARX advocated for the exact same policy. Can we at least consider the word "socialism"??

And I think I have demonstrated that, at least in this instance, you and rowley completely agree. You both don't think that other people should have to pay your property taxes. Which is exactly what Democrats are arguing for (and have traditionally argued for). I think Karl Marx would be on the Democrats' side here.

Tom Kenney

"""And I think I have demonstrated that, at least in this instance, you and rowley completely agree. """


You demonstrated no such thing!

Drew M

Wow. Witness union hacks unhinged, everyone.

Tom, step out of the union bubble for one minute and think. This isn't that complicated. Rowley writes that other people shouldn't have to pay the property taxes of others, which is exactly why unions and Democrats are saying they want to tax the rich. When I asked, "Tom, why do you think other people should pay your property taxes?" YOU responded, "I don't think they should."

Therefore, you and Rowley agree. Yet, for some reason you're on a tirade against him. And quite frankly, we see this type of emotional and irrational form of argument from a lot of union apologists. I understand that you feel slighted, and that your pay and pension are on the line, but let's at least try to be intellectually honest.

Tom Kenney

Dreww, you're in fantasy land.

Drew M

Tom, your last two posts are called "non-responses." They're equal to a virtual forfeit in any standard debate competition.




Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.