Raise the taxes for our own good

AZ Republic ^ | 12/28/02 | Dan Schweiker

[hsmomx3]

Arizona boasts a long, strong tradition of Republicans who care deeply about our state and our future. As part of that tradition and as a businessman, I am keenly aware of the need to maximize dollars flowing within the economy, especially during these economic hard times.

As a pragmatic Republican, I know the only logical thing to do right now is to raise taxes. The facts are clear and incontrovertible:

• Cutting basic government services is bad for business. Eliminating state jobs and state spending threatens our economic recovery.

Our economy needs the stimulus of tax dollars to keep money flowing in the economy. If we do the opposite - cut services and take tax dollars out of the economy - private businesses will ultimately feel the pinch. I have yet to see a business that shrank itself to greatness. That applies to government as well.

• Even before the budget crisis hit, Arizona's state and local governments spent less per capita than any other state in the country on operating expenditures. We did not enter this budget crisis overflowing with excess or unnecessary spending.

• Our tax code hasn't kept up with the times and the changing consumption patterns of Arizonans. Why should we expect a 1930s tax code to be effective in 2003? Special tax treatment for select goods narrows the tax base, distorts consumer behavior and is just plain unfair for industries that haven't (yet) gotten some special exemption.

• Businesses should play on a level playing field when it comes to taxes, but under our current system it often doesn't work that way.

If I buy something at an Arizona store, the retailer pays sales taxes to Arizona. If I buy that exact same item over the Internet, the e-tailer may or may not collect and submit state sales taxes. That's not fair to our local merchants to the tune of almost $140 million per year.

There was a time a few years ago when Internet selling deserved some special breaks because it was a totally new form of commerce that might rewrite the rules on selling. Now, however, we have seen that it is just another way of doing business and does not deserve the tax breaks that penalize all the businesses that invest in bricks and mortar and employees.

• During the past decade, our Legislature has enacted state tax cuts, enough to total more than $775 million each year. It¹s only fair that those of us who enjoyed some of the perks of the economic boom times be willing to take some responsibility when it comes to the state budget crisis.

When the state economy was strong, did we do the prudent thing and put money aside for a "rainy day"? No, we reduced our "rainy day" fund and cut taxes so much that when the inevitable economic downturn came, we were caught without proper savings to help weather the slump.

Even though we have consistently made choices as a state to do things on the cheap, we seem surprised when we consistently get crummy results. We rank at the bottom when it comes to important issues such as school dropouts and child poverty. State budget cuts will only move us backwards from there.

There are both selfish and pragmatic reasons I care about the state budget. My business will suffer if I can't find qualified employees or move my product across Arizona highways because accidents don't get cleared. As a businessman, I want a well-prepared and educated workforce. I want sound family supports, like health insurance and child care assistance, for my employees and customers who need them.

On a more fundamental level, I care about this state. I moved to Arizona because I love it here. As an Arizonan, I want us to be best in the nation when it comes to quality-of-life issues like high school graduation rates, stellar universities, healthy citizens, well-trained employees and family income.

As a Republican, I know that we need to invest in Arizona to make it a state worthy of all the great people who live here. And, yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes to make that happen.

Dan Schweiker is chairman and CEO of Scottsdale-based China Mist Tea Co.

[TheGrimReaper]

I know the only logical thing to do right now is to raise taxes. The facts are clear and incontrovertible

Looks like the use of peyote is still prevalent in AZ.

[Nat Turner]

RINOS never learn.....

I will go along with this tax hike - if he can prove one time that you can tax your way to prosperity

[ppaul]

Imbecile.

[Jim Robinson]

Cut the taxes. Cut the government spending. Grow the economy. It's the only way.

[xJones]

And, yes, I'm willing to pay more taxes to make that happen.

Dan Schweiker is chairman and CEO of Scottsdale-based China Mist Tea Co.

Wonderful! He can just donate the government his #$%@@ tea company. Those of us enjoying the 38% and higher bracket spend our time looking for tax BREAKS. Sheesh, the Arizonan Republicans need to find an industrial-sized butterfly net for that loon.

Willie, I didn't think you'd want to miss this, FRiend.

[tomahawk]

So what's stopping this idiot from mailing in more taxes from himself? Nothing. He wants to steal from others. POS.

[JCG]

Dan Schweiker is chairman and CEO of Scottsdale-based China Mist Tea Co.

I think Schweiker's been smoking some of that China Mist.

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

Who is Steve Emerson?

[Libertina]

"As a Republican, I ..." STINK!

[Riverman94610]

Once the tax raising frenzy begins it is hard to stop.I personally don't mind paying taxes for essential services but the amount of waste here in California is shameful.

[HighWheeler]

"If we do the opposite - cut services and take tax dollars out of the economy - private businesses will ultimately feel the pinch."

I agree, nothing worse than a company feeling the pinch of having too much money to pay the employees, the creditors, and cutting the price of goods and services.

[tacticalogic]

One of the reasons the rates are so high is that there are too few people paying them.

We fought one war over taxation without representation. We may have to fight another one over representation without taxation.

[lelio]

I have yet to see a business that shrank itself to greatness. That applies to government as well.
This pragmatic Republican should think of what the duty of government is and then reduce it to that, and do those few tasks well.

Special tax treatment for select goods narrows the tax base, distorts consumer behavior and is just plain unfair for industries that haven't (yet) gotten some special exemption.
100% on target. The tax code is used to benefit political donors, or used to punish those that don't play along.

My business will suffer if I can't find qualified employees
That could be true, but I would like to see some specifics on this. Is he having trouble hiring now? Why is that? It looks like he runs China Mist Tea.

[hsmomx3]

I've often thought that instead of raising taxes just let it be known that if people want to pay more, they can just send it in. Of course we also have Janet El Reno Napo as our new governor. I'm not so sure she will be able to raise taxes as much as she'd like.

[MarketR]

Our economy needs the stimulus of tax dollars to keep money flowing in the economy.

Here is the key statement...This clown is a moron!

"The stimulus of tax dollars"? Taxes remove dollars from the economy. Sheesh!

Another socialist seeking a party...try the Democrat party. They have the same misguided thought processes as you do.

(not you..hsmomx3)

[B. Rabbit]

Right, so everytime the economy is bad, increase taxes and the economy becomes good again? Let's just jack up taxes to 100% then, boy, the money would be flowing like crazy, the economy would be out of this world.

Small businesses would feel no pinch at all if we would only have full income taxation! What a lunatic.

[winner3000]

</i> Cutting basic government services is bad for business. Eliminating state jobs and state spending threatens our economic recovery.

Our economy needs the stimulus of tax dollars to keep money flowing in the economy.</i>

I thought this keynsian bs was discredited long ago. How is taking the money from people who would have spent it (based on their needs), and letting the government spend it (based on political, special interest considerations and inefficient government jobs) stimulating to the economy?

As President Bush noticed, even giving people the $300 or $600 checks over the summer was not stimulating. It's better than if the government spent it, but still not stimulating because as economists noted, people change behavior based on their expected PERMANENT income, not this temporary blip.

The only way to truly stimulate the economy is to cut the marginal tax rate (the tax rate for each additional dollar of income). This will incent people to work for that extra dollar since they get to keep more of it. Otherwise they prefer time for leisure rather than expand that extra effort. This stimulates the economy as more work (productivity) gets done, more gets produced, more income is generated and spent, more workers are hired...

Republicans need to inform the public at large of the above since our schools are obviously not doing their job. It is a more complex explanation than the usual sound bite politics. That's why it's so much easier (even though wrong) to be a liberal.

[Fintan]

Our economy needs the stimulus of tax dollars to keep money flowing in the economy.

You beat me to it, but you've expressed my sentiments exactly.

If anyone can tell me how tax dollars stimulate the economy, you know where to find me...

[citizenK]

I have yet to see a business that shrank itself to greatness. That applies to government as well.

On the contrary - we have yet to see a situation where prosperity comes from taxation.

The crux of this guy's argument is that we need government spending to keep money flowing in the economy. IOW, this guy thinks government serves as the proverbial middle man for economic activity. This idea is unsound, and runs contrary to arguments for efficiency that dominate economic thinking.

Cutting basic government services is bad - but what does he consider "basic" and what does he consider excessive or unnecessary?

This guy advocates placing taxes on internet sales claiming it is not fair that local businesses must pay the sales tax, whereas people purchasing over the internet (out of state) do not have to pay. Wouldn't it be more fair to the local businesses then to cut taxes so they can better compete with out-of-state internet driven sales? Also, someone in AZ buying a product over the internet from a business in CA, tells us two important things about taxation - the first is that such people view local taxes as already being too high, and secondly, the level of taxation that people will bear for given products is equivalent to the shipping costs of acquiring the goods out-of-state. Also, aren't there people in CA purchasing goods from merchants in AZ so they too can avoid paying their excessive sales taxes? If these so-called business friendly politicians want to help local businesses, they should work to get taxation more in line with shipping costs so people will not develop an interest in acquiring goods from out-of-state.

Now, however, we have seen that it is just another way of doing business and does not deserve the tax breaks that penalize all the businesses that invest in bricks and mortar and employees.

This is a specious argument because like I said above, people from all over benefit from e-commerce, and merchants from all over benefit from e-commerce as well. Furthermore, aren't many e-commerce sites themselves established brick-and-mortar businesses, owned by both national corporate interests as well as being owned by "mom and pop" types of a local nature?

This guy purports s to be business friendly in the guise of fairness, but his view of the world is not fair to consumers or to local entreprenurial interests either.
Pragmatic Republican????
More like pragmatic socialist.