devised by a Democratic governor. Although property tax relief is needed, it is at least based on value of property...the more expensive your house is, the higher your tax. If you have a very modest house, you pay less.
Sales taxes are regressive. They hit the poor and middle classes much harder than they hit the wealthy. Adding items to be taxed will just hit the same people harder. A more noble fight on sales tax could be taxing of internet purchased---saving brick and mortar stores in the state while collecting sales taxes on all the purchased that are now getting a free pass.
There are a lot of solutions to the deficit problems of cities, counties, and the state that are more fair. I look at the "earned income tax" that my city has, and I wonder why it is only on earned income? A person who retires at age 50 because they have so much money that they do not need to work, and earns more than most workers earn on investments and retirement packages, pays no income tax to the city. I don't see how this is fair. The minimum wage earner is paying income tax on ever dollar that they earn busting their ass, while others pay nothing.
Another solution has been talked about for years---the cost of our state government, second only to California if the statistics are still the same as when I heard it. There is no reason that this state should spend so much on governing.
Then there is that flat tax on income in the state, that is also regressive. If I were going to fight for tax changes, this would be a more worthwhile fight. It hurts the person making $20,000 a whole lot more to pay the state income tax than it hurts the person making $2,000,000. It means that the low wage workers may not be able to pay the utility bills or rent, but the high wage earners may not be able to buy a pair of expensive shoes with matching handbag.
Or how about all the companies who come in and get significant tax breaks for moving into an area and claiming they will create 100 jobs, but never get over 25 jobs created? Why are we not holding them to the agreement, and billing them for the 3/4 of the tax break that they reneged on.
The idea that corporations should not have to pay taxes, or should pay very little, makes no sense. They require the same services from government that we all to---fire departments, decent roads, police.
I would like to know what they do with all the money that we send them. Reading the budgets doesn't answer my questions. I believe that they could cut the budget significantly with some "austerity" of their own---and that does not mean getting rid of more inspectors or road crews. It means making it a lot less lucrative to be a Harrisburg politician. And when they talk of cutting inspectors and road crews, I suggest that we first cut legislators.
= new reply since forum marked as read