This Year in Taxes

Happy tax day, everyone! Whenever I log in to Turbo Tax, I think of Tim Geithner, and so I was trying to think of the other political figures who have made this year in taxes interesting:

• Tom Daschle
• Timothy Geithner
• Nancy Kellifer
• Kathleen Sibelius
• Cindy McCain
• Sarah Palin

  Who am I missing?

  As long as we are sorting through pieces of paper and trying to figure out whether a newly purchased, 30-year old doublewide is more like a car or more like a house, I wanted to pull out of the drawer a possibility that a friend of mine floated the other week. What if we moved from an income-tax based system to a wealth tax based system? Its something I don't know much about, but I'm intrigued; its a model used in a half dozen other countries. I found an older article arguing for the wealth tax here. Robert Reich has argued something similar in recent years, and I understand there was a grassroots effort in California to push for a wealth tax.

  In brief, the argument is that a wealth tax would help diminish some of our inequality, while encouraging productive activity over unproductive activity. I'd like to learn more about other countries' experiences, and the arguments on both sides.

  Share this article

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 

  Comments (31)

  1. Mr. Teachout, "Robert Reich has argued something similar"

     Page Not Found

     The requested URL does not exist.

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 09:25am

  2. The link should work now. Thanks for pointing it out. ZT

     Posted by zephyrteachout at 04/15/2009 @ 09:30am

  3. Zephyr, I can think of a name to add to your list. How about Phil Gram. Check out the link below....it's from right here on the Nation.

     A wealth tax is a great idea. But, once again, enforcemnt of the tax code, and laws is the only thing that will work. The wealthy have been hiding their money in offshore accounts....once again, go to the link below.

     Another good thing would be our leaders leading by example and paying their taxes and to quit writing loopholes in the taxcode that they can then exploit. The terms conflict of interest keep popping into my head on this.

     I guess you can't legilate honesty, but you sure as hell can make those caught being dishonest pay through the nose via jail time and complete loss of everything they have.

     http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/scheer?rel=hp_picks

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 09:55am

  4. Interesting how when Geithner's name comes up from our friends on the Right...

     they seem to forget about Arctic Prom Queen Granny's (SP) little "troubles" with back taxes, huh?

     Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 10:02am

  5. Here's some rather startling happening:

     I dropped off my tax return mid-day on Monday, April 13th, in a USPS mailbox. It contained a check to the Treasury. That check cleared my account last night, the 14th.

     Thank God I had enough money in it to cover it.....I knew it was close which is why I checked my acct. balance......

     I'm just floored by the speed of this check's journey!!

     I'll be going to the Houston Tea Party this afternoon.....I'll have me a poster...found something deep in my son's closet that can be adapted.....maybe not very tasteful, but...hey, if it piss off a few Libs and makes it onto the media circuit, Grrrrrrrrreat!

     Posted by Happy at 04/15/2009 @ 10:36am

  6. The wealth tax sounds like a serious invasion of privacy to me!

     As it is, the Gubbers know regularly via annual tax returns, our financial lives in near real-time. If we go to some kinda UHC, the Gubbers will also know all about our health in real-time.

     Going to a wealth-based taxing scheme, means the Gubbers will know all there is to know......and that's wayyyyyyyy too much!

     Posted by Happy at 04/15/2009 @ 10:40am

  7. Whaddaya think Anti?

     No prop tax in exchange for 0.1 % tax on your total wealth each year?

     Is 0.1% low enough to avoid discouraging saving (as if Americans needed help avoiding that)?

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/15/2009 @ 09:39am

     I dislike it because it's still based upon Marx

     From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:15am

  8. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:15am

     "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

     Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."---Matthew 19:23-24

     Commies!

     Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 12:24pm

  9. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."---Matthew 19:23-24

     Commies!

     Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 12:24pm

     Oh, that Jesus guy? Ya, but he never married which, in turn, puts his masculinity into question does it not?

     Then there's all the bit about taking care of your brother...you know, when I asked for clothing, did you cloth me, when I asked for food, did you feed me, when I asked you for shelter etc.

     The standard rethug line here would be, get off your ass Jesus and get a job. Quit freeloading off the system. The rest of us work and you don't deserve a free ride.

     I think that actually leads into one of his parables about the one brother who toiled in the fields and the other who partied like a rock star. When the proverbial rock star returns broke and weary, his father throws a big party and the worker brother is all pissed off because no party was ever thrown on his behalf, hence the beginning of the republican party....if I can't get it, no one else can either motto.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 12:43pm

  10. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 12:43pm

      I'm sure Larry will be along to explain how Jesus was not only a laissez-faire capitalist (No Marxist minimum wage or Maoist workplace safety at Joseph's shop...no sirree!)...but, naturally, approved of cluster bombings and tactical nukes!

      Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 1:31pm

  11. posted by ZEPHYR TEACHOUT on 04/15/2009 @ 09:08am

      I don't know that I can answer your question "Who am I missing?" because this edit box isn't big enough for the names I could begin to print off the top of my head.

      In truth, the only things I can think about today vis-a-vis Tax Day are:

      1) The fact that Barack Obama along with Congressional enablers is giving my tax money to Wall Street executives to do with as they please, including putting the money into their pockets as "bonuses",

      2) Over the last several years, My Tax Dollars have been used in US-directed warfare that I find obscene and immoral,

      3) My Tax Dollars go to vast and lethal pork projects in the form of "defense" spending,

      3) Over the last decades, billions of My Tax Dollars are given to Israel to build up its military capabilities, which it then uses to subjugate the Palestinians, kill them, and threaten to attack its neighbors.

      The list of services the USG could provide with tax money would be less a list and more a characterization of an entirely different government regime, driven by entirely different priorities.

      I don't like Tax Day; this is the day when I realize how I personally contribute my hard-earned money, even in bad economic times, to a political class and a set of activities that have very little to do with taking care of me, anyone like me, or even fit into a tolerable moral framework.

      Posted by syfriendly at 04/15/2009 @ 1:49pm

  12. posted by ZEPHYR TEACHOUT on 04/15/2009 @ 09:08am

      Wealth tax: I'm all for any moderate and well-implemented version of it. However, just as responsible as morally (and pragmatically) better taxation is morally (and pragmatically) better expenditure of the revenues thus drawn. See my above post, etc.

      Posted by syfriendly at 04/15/2009 @ 1:50pm

  13. Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 12:24pm

      How do you always manage to put in a totally non relevant statement?

      Marx goes beyond merely having riches and you know it.

      Nor does Jesus prohibit material wealth. He noted that given man's nature, most lose sight of G-d as the provider of that wealth and thus endanger their soul. He was reminding them of the warning in Deuteronomy 8:10-18

      When you have eaten and are full, then you shall bless the LORD your God for the good land which He has given you. 11 "Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments, His judgments, and His statutes which I command you today, 12 lest--when you have eaten and are full, and have built beautiful houses and dwell in them; 13 and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold are multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied; 14 when your heart is lifted up, and you forget the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; 15 who led you through that great and terrible wilderness, in which were fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty land where there was no water; who brought water for you out of the flinty rock; 16 who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do you good in the end--

      17 then you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth.'

      "And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

      Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:15pm

  14. He was reminding them of the warning in Deuteronomy 8:10-18

      Liv, How do you know that? Did Jesus actually say he was reminding of the warning of Deuternomony or is this an implied relation of events to Deuteronomy?

      The old testament is like a friggin business manual with rules and regulations about how many mules a person might have and how many burnt offerings they must give to the lord and so on, but it is in serious conflict with many parts of the new testament. So, going back and forth between the two is cherry picking passages to suit your argument.

      Also, I'd like to point out that Kings believed this little tidbit too much and figured that God set them before others to rule with an iron fist. See how easy it is to twist this stuff around for your own purposes? Nothing like people who stole to gain their wealth only to turn around and pretend God gave it to them because they were blessed among all men. I say complete horseshit on all of it.

      "And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

      Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 3:36pm

  15. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 3:36pm

      First of all, Jesus said that the scriptures testify of and to Him.

      Secondly, as the Word of G-d, He is the ultimate author, the one giving the authors of the Bible the messages.

      Third, it is because the two passages are entirely consistent in scope and context.

      Fourth, the meaning is so obvious that anyone would understand the implications who said they follow the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

      As to your reference to Kings, it is obvious that anyone seeking after themself rather than G-d will try and distort G-d's word for their own use. However, the purpose of His word is not to focus on us, but Him.

      Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

  16. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:15am |

      But it's really the "to each according to his need" part that gets your goat...

      Posted by snowball666 at 04/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

      No, as the old saying goes, "the devil is in the details".

      In this case, it is theft. I happen to have an aversion to theft. Theft is the forcible action of taking from an unwilling participant.

      I prefer helping people out of my own heart rather than it being forced by the theft of force.

      Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 4:02pm

  17. As to your reference to Kings, it is obvious that anyone seeking after themself rather than G-d will try and distort G-d's word for their own use. However, the purpose of His word is not to focus on us, but Him.

      Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

      Liv, I believe you and I have been down this road before, but Jesus didn't write the new testament nor did his apostles. The writings took place well after Jesus's time, so these exact quotes are one hell of a stretch.

      The best definition I've heard to date of the new testament is that it's the inspired word of God, not the word of God. Only the Muslims believe their holy book is the direct word of Allah, the Christians make no claim to this.

      Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

  18. The best definition I've heard to date of the new testament is that it's the inspired word of God, not the word of God. Only the Muslims believe their holy book is the direct word of Allah, the Christians make no claim to this.

      Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

      I'd like to rephrase that. The Bible (the entire book) is supposed to be the inspired word of God. Through the ages canonical passages have been added, retracted, tweaked and so on, so this inspired word has been edited more times than the faux network lies....damn near impossible to count not to mention how many versions of the bible are floating around out there.

      Sorry, but I have a hard time buying into something that was written in the day that stoning people to death was a fun sort of recreation. I'd hope we'd moved forward as a species further than that.

      Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/15/2009 @ 4:18pm

  19. STEAL! Now the failed socialist state of California $42 billion in debt knows how to steal taxpayer dollars aided by Obamanation and the Demoncrats!

      "Stimulating the weak economy can be a pretty rough road -- especially when it costs $25 million to repave a single mile of highway.

      $25 million per mile – that's the price California's Department of Transportation is paying to "repave 3 miles of rough pavement on Interstate 710 in Los Angeles," according to its official description of the project. And U.S. taxpayers are footing the pricey bill.

      Residents in other states also might care about the hefty price tag because the state is using money from the $787 billion stimulus bill to pay for it. It's part of what California calls the State Highway Operation and Protection Program.

      The $25 million price tag suggests the road will be paved with expensive good intentions. Caltrans officials say the stretch of 710 is heavily traveled and needs repair.

      With the spiraling price of petroleum before the economic downturn, asphalt costs have increased sharply in recent years. The New York Times reported last year that in Westchester, N.J., asphalt had increased from $72 to $90 per ton.

      That inflation was cited by officials there to justify repaving 12 miles of Westchester road for a princely sum of $9 million.

      Caltrans estimates the material cost of asphalt concrete pavement at only about $66.21 per ton. So why would refurbishing 3 miles of roadway in Los Angeles cost taxpayers $75 million – or $25 million per mile?"

      This is just the tip of the taxpayer THEFT Obamanation and the Demoncrats have purposed to do!

      Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 4:57pm

  20. Um, you guys? There is no God, just Death and Taxes. The person wrote the entry at the top of the page was talking about the latter. You seem to have triggered someone's personal religious dementia and are now discussing bibilical texts.

      Do you have *nothing* to do with yourselves?

      Posted by syfriendly at 04/15/2009 @ 4:59pm

  21. Wolfgang1,

      You said above ".....Also, I'd like to point out that Kings believed this little tidbit too much and figured that God set them before others to rule with an iron fist...."

      I can not see where you figure Kings are ruling anybody with an iron fist, in light of the following data:

      NBA Western Conference Playoff seed,team,W,L

      1-LA Lakers,65,17

      2-Denver,54,27

      3-Houston,53,28

      4-Portland,53,28

      5-San Antonio,53,28

      6-New Orleans,49,32

      7-Dallas,49,32

      8-Utah,48,34

      Phoenix,45,36

      Golden State,29,52

      Minnesota,24,57

      Memphis,23,58

      Oklahoma City,22,59

      LA Clippers,19,62

      Sacramento,16,65

      OK, OK, I am sorry. This was a weak attempt at humor on my part when I saw you use the word "Kings" because I am a Sacramento Kings fan who is not happy with their relative status these days, which has been the case since Kings management got rid of Coach Rick Adleman.

      This was just an attempt at humor by a Sacramento Kings fan (me) and I meant no political or Biblical comment by it - I am just venting about the Kings.

      Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:59pm

  22. Intresting I am not the ONLY one who sees the Obamanation admin. and the Demoncrats as new Californians!

      "The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off.

      How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)

      California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance.

      In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."

      They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"

      In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.

      Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof.

      Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 6:00pm

  23. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. Sure, the governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...

      California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. The rabbit died, so now Obama is trying it on a national level.

      That's what the tea parties are about!"

      Funny how no one will listen until they hear that flushing sound as the nation takes the plunge!

      Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 6:01pm

  24. posted by Zephyr Teachout on 04/15/2009 - in part:

      "What if we moved from an income-tax based system to a wealth tax based system? It's something I don't know much about…"

      At this point shouldn't you stop and ask yourself, "Maybe I should learn a bit about this before I move forward?"

      Posted by Incoming at 04/16/2009 @ 07:44am

  25. Taxes?? Jesus! Over 600,000 more jobs lost today! Ok, lets more and borrow money from the Chinese and invite everyone over to what a great set of programs we set up with our "GlobalInflationarySelectCard" that we cant Afford. Housing starts off a cliff again! Where is the almighy stimulus effect? Its like watching a jucky ripping off his mother's house. You all will get a check but no J-O-B, and no dignity. Get off the porch, drop the 40, get up early, work and go to night school. The world owns us. And we just go along for the fashionable "cool". http://www.cnbc.com/id/30243405 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681860305802821.html If you want to know the truth about the "dear leader" its not about economic growth. Suckers! Duped again! HAHAHA! One for the history books!

      Posted by mike63 at 04/16/2009 @ 08:13am

  26. "If you want to know the truth about the "dear leader" its not about economic growth."---Posted by mike63 at 04/16/2009 @ 08:13am

      So Obama wants a bad economy so he'll lose re-election in 2012??? And CNBC and the Wall Street Journal, who were so prescient about how the economy was going to go last year...can prove it?

      Ah-ha.

      Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 08:29am

  27. He will get reelected by his bretheren, and all those who love their $13 per week "tax cut". ...the great "unwashed".

      Posted by mike63 at 04/16/2009 @ 08:34am

  28. Oh!..by the way I guess North Korea thinks the Bushwacker is still in office telling by their recent missile launch and withdrawl from the six-party talks, or did I miss Obama's "Axix of evil" speech?

      Posted by mike63 at 04/16/2009 @ 08:43am

  29. This was just an attempt at humor by a Sacramento Kings fan (me) and I meant no political or Biblical comment by it - I am just venting about the Kings.

      Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:59pm

      Hey SJ, Don't feel bad about the Kings. I am not a big NBA fan, but had the misfortune of going to a San Diego Clippers game when I lived there. I actually fell asleep while attempting to watch the game it was so exciting.

      Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:36am

  30. Posted by mike63 at 04/16/2009 @ 08:34am

      And WHO exactly is Obama's "brethren"?

      Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 11:02am

  31. Zeph, you're forgetting Hilda Solis and Ron Kirk:

      HS - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/06/ nation/na-solis6

      RK - http://www.economist.com/blogs/ democracyinamerica/2009/03/and_another_one.cfm

      Simplify the tax code and we'd have less people--good, bad and otherwise--skimping on their taxes. More revenue and less hassles for average folks.

      All the Obama administration has to do is close those pesky loopholes--and upset the special interests which pushed for them in the first place...

      Posted by s-interns at 04/16/2009 @ 12:17pm