Posted on 04/11/2008 8:12:27 PM PDT by dmanLA
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is:
Earlier this week, Senator Hillary Clinton said "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them and we didn't need them." Earlier this year, Warren Buffett testified before Congress saying in part "I think we need to....take a little more out of the hides of guys like me." Barbara Streisand once said "Republicans cater to the rich. I'd rather pay more taxes, see social reform, health care and research for AIDS."
All of these people could have voluntarily paid more in taxes. But they chose not to. Maybe that's because it is not easy or clear how you can pay extra taxes if you want to.
I am here to help. This week, I introduced the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act." Under this bill, a line would be added to the tax form 1040 which would easily allow you to add as much additional tax as you would like over the amount that has been computed. Furthermore, you can call for the money to be spent rather than just applied to pay down the deficit. Under this bill, all those people who want to see the Bush tax cuts repealed could easily pay that extra tax. After all, shouldn't they lead by example?
Yep, the Clintons, Obamas, Streisand, Buffett, Charlie Rangel can all pay more tax to show us they mean it and they can fund their favorite earmarks or whatever Congress wants to fund with that money.
Just don't ask the rest of us, through government fiat, to pay what you want to pay and fund what you want to fund.
By the way, Senator Clinton was invited to the press conference we had to introduce this bill. I didn't see her there. Maybe her "check got lost in the mail?"
Right below that line on additional tax volunteered should be a sentence and a box to check stating that “I demand my tax form be made public.”
My tag line applies to this bill....
Let us see how many Rat’s sign up for this one!
I’ve been searching for the text of the bill, but no luck so far.
I don't think very many good liberals take advantage of that easy way to pay higher taxes.
Certainly not any of the elected or appointed officials, like JF'nK or Teddy "Bilge Water" Kennedy.
in December, Gov. Huckabee created the "Tax Me More Fund," so people who consider themselves undertaxed can donate more to the state government.
BUMP
(This idea has been tried in Massachusetts):
Our bleeding-heart liberals get a leg up on being tight-fisted
By Howie Carr | Friday, March 14, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com
The bluer Massachusetts becomes, the stingier its ever-growing liberal majority is getting when it comes to voluntarily giving money to the state.
So far this 2008 tax season, fewer Bay Staters than ever before are checking off the box on their state income tax forms that allows them to pay at the old 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the 5.3 percent rate pushed through by heartless, mean-spirited conservatives.
As of Monday, 1.3 million state taxpayers have filed their 2007 returns. And of those, a mere 294 have decided to pay their . . . fair share. For the children.
That works out (I think) to about one-40th of 1 percent. And those 294 chumps - I mean, concerned citizens - have generated a mere $27,944 in additional revenue, which means that the average income of the donors is approximately $10,000.
By my inexact calculations, that $28G number probably means that no one single Beautiful Person has filled in the oval on line 22 to pay at the more generous, Democrat-endorsed higher tax rate.
Last year, according to the state Department of Revenue, a mere 1,208 taxpayers out of 3.3 million paid at the higher rate, generating $162,024 in additional revenue.
That 1,208 number works out to .000366 percent of all Massachusetts taxpayers, which, as pathetic as it is, is still higher than the commonwealth appears destined for this year.
I am perplexed. After all, when the proposed income tax cut was on the ballot in 2000, more than a million Massachusetts residents voted to keep the income tax at its old, higher rate. Apparently they only wanted other people to have to pay the higher rate. You can’t blame the 60 percent of us who voted to cut our taxes for not paying. The other 40 percent, though - what’s up with you people? Do you think taxes are for somebody else to pay, but not you?
The Politically Correct always inform us, a tax cut “only” amounts to so much per week.
Well, two can play at the “only” game. If you make $50,000 a year, checking the box to pay at the higher rate “only” costs you $550 a year - “only” a sawbuck and change per week. Aren’t you willing to give up a large cheese pizza per week to make sure that David Bartley can continue collecting his $140,000 annual pension?
Liberals, look at it this way - it’s “only” your federal tax rebate that you’d be giving up.
Last year I challenged every politician to tell me if they were paying at the voluntary higher rate. One elected official called - Governor’s Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning. Now I hear the hacks on the North Shore have been looking around for someone to run against her in the Democratic primary. Obviously, she doesn’t quite fit in on Beacon Hill.
This week, I called the office of Gov. Deval Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. They’re very, very liberal, which makes it very, very unlikely they’d give you the shirts off their backs. They’d prefer to steal somebody else’s shirt, and then give it to you, in a big ceremony with TV cameras at the State House. At deadline, no one from the Corner Office had called me back. The office of Senate President Terry Murray likewise did not respond to an inquiry about whether she’ll be paying the higher tax.
I did, however, receive an answer of sorts from House Speaker Sal DiMasi. His spokesman responded to my question in an e-mail:
“Howie - The Speaker said he’ll pay the higher rate if he can trade salaries with you. Otherwise, he will pay what he is required to pay under the current law.”
Again, I ask all politicians, especially those at the State House and Boston City Hall: Let me know if you’re paying at the higher rate, for the children. I won’t promise you a column, but I’d like to know, for the record.
When the phone don’t ring, I’ll know it’s all you liberals out there.
Excellent
Guys like Buffett can afford to be liberal; working stiffs like me can’t.
It is my understanding that Buffet has two main sources of income: Life insurance sales and 2) buying up good business that are forced onto the market after the owner dies and the Death Tax forces the heirs to sell.
He supports higher income taxes and the death tax because life insurance proceeds is not subject to either, a boon for life insurance sales and the death tax gives him lots of prospects to pick over to find a winner.
His personal income is sheltered by foundations and trusts he created for that purpose.
What he says should be taken with that in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.