By FITSNews || This pocket, that pocket … it doesn’t matter to South Carolina’s money-hungry politicians, they’re going to take it from you one way or the other.
At least that’s the modus operandi behind the long-awaited Taxation Realignment Commission (TRAC) report, which is every bit the big government money grab we anticipated it would be. Released Wednesday, the report proposes a blizzard of tax increases (as well as new taxes) in an effort to keep feeding government’s spending addiction – but it offers very little in the way of tax relief for overburdened South Carolinians struggling to make ends meet.
In other words, it’s par for the course in the “tax-and-spend” Palmetto state. Seriously, how is it that the most “Republican” state in America – where the GOP controls every lever of state government – continues to tow the liberal line on fiscal policy so religiously?
No wonder we consistently rank last in everything good and first in everything bad …
Anyway, all we needed to know about the utter worthlessness of this latest status quo manifesto is its “revenue neutrality.” That means it will do absolutely nothing to reduce the tax burden on working South Carolinians … nor will it do anything to slacken the insatiable appetite of a government that’s already way too big for its britches.
In other words it won’t do a damn thing to stimulate consumerism, create jobs or lure capital investment to the state.
Which means it will fail, fail, fail.
Here are just a few of the recommendations included in this latest attempt to separate you from more of your hard-earned cash:
*Reinstate the tax on groceries at 2.5 percent
*Add a 2.5 percent sales tax to prescription drugs
*Add a 2.5 percent sales to water sold by public utilities
*Lower the state sales tax from 6 percent to 4.96 percent
*Add the sales tax to newspapers
*Add the sales tax to items purchased over the internet
*Add the sales tax to cars (replacing the current flat tax of $300)
Jeez … groceries, water, prescription drugs, internet purchases … talk about hitting people where they live. And how on earth is this “revenue-neutral” again? Because we’re counting a lot more tax hikes than tax cuts, particularly when you start getting into the internet tax (which we warned you six months ago that lawmakers were eying ravenously).
Clearly the TRAC plan is not revenue neutral. In fact it’s author, former Revenue Director Burnie Maybank, acknowledges that over time the “reforms” included in the proposal will take more money out of the economy than they put in (while simultaneously generating more money for legislators to blow, of course).
In other words, the TRAC plan is nothing but a massive tax hike – one that strikes at the very heart of South Carolina’s consumer economy.
That’s the last thing we need to be doing … particularly now.
South Carolina leaders must summon the political courage to cut taxes and eliminate unnecessary government (as well as wasteful, duplicative and inefficient government), not continue taking the easy way out by slapping consumers with new taxes and fees in an effort to keep feeding the beast.
By yarrrr July 21, 2010 at 9:20 pm
*Lower the state sales tax from 6 percent to 4.96 percent
*Add the sales tax to newspapers
*Add the sales tax to cars (replacing the current flat tax of $300)
I’m ok with these three…
By countryboy July 21, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I have heard some stupid proposals come out of Columbia in my lifetime, but this one takes the cake. My god at the money it would take from taxpayers (and give to politicians to spend). I hope you come up with a figure on what these taxes would cost taxpayers (and generate for politicians to blow). It has to be billions of dollars per year. I am voting against every incumbent Republican, Democrat, doesn’t matter. Fed up with all of them from Obama down to the jackasses in the SC House and Senate who represent me. Wait, that’s wrong. They don’t represent me. If they respresented me they would be cutting wastea and the size of government, thereby reducing the need for more taxes.
By countryboy July 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm
That last sentence should read – If they represented me they would be cutting waste and the size of government, thereby reducing the need for more taxes.
By FollyGirl July 21, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Taxation without representation! These jackasses don’t represent the people. They represent themselves, and the jackasses that line their pockets. It took years to get a lousy .50 cents tax hike on deadly cigarettes. I’ll bet this multiple tax hike takes no time at all to implement. A big fat one finger salute to every scum bag politician in SC.
By Boz Scaggs July 21, 2010 at 11:31 pm
No way Jose, If you guys go buy an average car that is $20,000 with no $300.00 cap in place you will pay $1200 in tax instead.
By It;'s Simple July 22, 2010 at 12:57 am
What moron sits down and says “I think the sales tax should be 4.96%”?
Would making it a flat 5% seem too high?
Put it at 3% across the board (except water, food, medicine). And if they plan to tax internet purchases, make it the responsibility of the seller to collect it at the time of purchase.
By O'Neal Compton July 22, 2010 at 1:10 am
The $300 cap on the sale of cars, boats and airplanes is about 30 years out of date. They should, at a minimum, raise the cap to $1000.
By OhNoNotAgain July 22, 2010 at 2:32 am
Sales tax on newspapers would be only tax on a media source. A tax on information. Have a big problem with that.
As opposed to most of the whining we hear from Tea Party folks, this would be a return to what was done to our Colonial Forefathers. It’s the stamp tax, basically.
By Just the Facts Ma'am July 22, 2010 at 6:06 am
Countryboy, I’d really love to hear specific recomendations on cutting the size of government. What would you cut?
By Just the Facts Ma'am July 22, 2010 at 6:07 am
That should be recommendations….
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) July 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
Maybank . . . say . . . isn’t that the same Maybank that works for Nexsen Pruet? Served as the Director of the Department of Revenue during BOTH the Beasley and Sanford regimes?
Fox in the hen house, anyone?
- SSHM
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) July 22, 2010 at 6:43 am
Almost forgot … looks like the SC (Libertarian) Policy Council gave him a leadership award of some sorts in 2006? So is he a champion of the taxpayer or not?
I’m thinking not . . .
- SSHM
By eggaday July 22, 2010 at 7:24 am
who’s on the commission?
who appointed them?
who told them what to do?
they’re only telling us what some elected elite told them to do… so who’s the guilty dog and let’s hear him bark louder ok?
By Steve July 22, 2010 at 7:31 am
Geez Will, you know you don’t count tax hikes and tax cuts by the number of lines in a proposal. The overall tax rate would be lowered on everything that is taxed in South Carolina in exchange for foregoing tax exemptions that were created by some lobbyist and their drinking buddy Legislator to benefit a special few folks.
If Maybank says its revenue neutral and you say it’s a tax hike, I think I’ll go with the math from the trained economist.
By Florida Watching July 22, 2010 at 8:25 am
Entertainment – Huge revenues. Develop a reality show in Columbia centered around Nookie Nikki’s hectic busy busy schedule. The one that prevents her from attending committee meetings and filing tax disclosures until 5PM.
By Florida Watching July 22, 2010 at 8:28 am
Penalties – Slap a fine on all those who fail to be transparent, except in the sack.
By Woodrow July 22, 2010 at 8:52 am
I agree 100% with these proposals and think they will get wide support.
By FITSNews July 22, 2010 at 9:01 am
Steve-
In the Post and Courier article Maybank says that the new taxation practices would generate more cash for legislators to spend on government services.
How else should we interpret that?
-FITS
By You Talkin' to Me? July 22, 2010 at 9:05 am
The real story here is that Act 388 remains the sacred cow. Sales taxes are inherently volatile, much more than property taxes or even income taxes. Although taxing food and water will make the sales tax more stable, you are still going to see big fluctuations in revenue.
Not to mention that the sales tax is the most regressive tax around, forcing lower-income folks to pay a greater portion of their income in taxes because they spend a larger part of that income on necessities. Our tax code also screws homeowners because they can’t itemize the sales taxes AND property taxes and mortgage interest all at the same time. I personally would take a higher income and property taxes and no sales tax at all, because I could at least capture those taxes on my federal tax return. But then again, Act 388 was intended to help people who are a little bit better off than me….
By Florida Watching July 22, 2010 at 10:00 am
Snapper – What up? Your mind wandering in the midst of a continuing fog?
By Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo July 22, 2010 at 10:11 am
So weird to see folks that clamor for tax simplification, government not picking winners, and even a “fair tax” raise cain at setting a uniform rate. This proposal was designed to eliminate government tinkering in just one part of the tax law.
On a personal level, why should I subsidize people that buy expensive cars? That don’t take steps to economize their utility usage? That buy stuff from out of state on the internet instead of across the street? That have to take pills because the don’t take care of themselves, can’t get it up, or simply can’t get a grip? (my favorite of these is Abilify, the new anti-depressant for your anti-depressant)
By Ralph Hightower July 22, 2010 at 10:16 am
Will,
That’s what your girl betweeen the sheets, Nikki Haley, wants to do.
By Seymour Glass July 22, 2010 at 11:14 am
1. Cutting the state sales tax by more than 20% (roughly $500M this year) is how it would be revenue neutral, Will.
2. What Burnie said is true, the broader the base, the less likely to see reductions in revenue. That said, “Revenue Neutral” can only be estimated for the first year of implementation if you’re working with taxes that are fixed, Will… it’s rather simple.
3. This proposal, by no means, is a done deal, so wash the sand out, FITS and various commentators who aren’t really in touch with what is going on. In fact, I would venture to say that it’s far more likely DOA than it is a done deal.
By countryboy July 22, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Dear Just the facts ma’am,
Sorry, it’s not my job to recommend savings in government. That was my job in industry, which I did well enough to retire at 57.
By Pinckney's Ghost July 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Can you link to the full report?
By MJ July 22, 2010 at 2:04 pm
This just tells me they are trying to appeal to a specific interest and not bring taxes down overall.
By Analyst July 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm
So basically what you’re saying countryboy is you’re a whiney bitch that loves to yell about a problem, but can’t really identify the problem or have the balls (or lack thereof) to make the tough cut decisions. Maybe you and Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn should hang out. Typical
By madcock July 22, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Typical GOP class warfare.
Raise taxes on groceries and prescriptions while keeping the huge subsidies that allow the wealthy who buy a new Mercedes or a Bentley to pay the same sales tax that a poor working stiff buying a used ten-year old Hyundai to get to their minimum wage job pays.
And the Dems are too lilly-livered to do anything about it.
By snodgrass July 22, 2010 at 5:26 pm
So much for the Tea Party, eh?
By Bruce Hevner July 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I don’t see ANY mention of House Bill 3992 the SC Fair Tax bill.
(scfairtax.org)
This bill would ELIMINATE the personal AND Corporate tax in exchange for a slight increase in the state sales tax.
http://www.scfairtax.org/images/stories/pdf/statecalculation.pdf
I STRONGLY urge you to visit the website and check out the details for yourself. THEN contact your state representatives and ask them to support the SC FAIR TAX ACT.
SCFAIRTAX=JOBS !!!!!