SC

More Anemic “Income Tax Relief”

S.C. Rep. Tommy Stringer (R-Greenville) is a good guy … as far as we know, anyway. But his recently unveiled “income tax relief” plan is yet another exercise in pointlessness (which is par for the course among “reform in name only”-minded politicians in the S.C. General Assembly). According to reporter…

S.C. Rep. Tommy Stringer (R-Greenville) is a good guy … as far as we know, anyway. But his recently unveiled “income tax relief” plan is yet another exercise in pointlessness (which is par for the course among “reform in name only”-minded politicians in the S.C. General Assembly).

According to reporter Adam Beam of The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper, Stringer is pushing a plan which would impose a flat 3.75 percent income tax rate on taxable income between $2,850 and $14,500. Anything above $14,500 would still be taxed at 7 percent – which is effectively the highest income tax rate in the entire Southeast (and a major reason our state has to bribe companies to locate here).

The net result of Stringer’s proposed cut? A not-so-whopping $86 in income tax relief for each taxpayer (which is good for a not-so-whopping $80 million reduction in the state’s $23 billion budget).

Don’t get us wrong – we’ll take the $86. But we can’t in good conscience call this proposal “tax relief.” It’s a talking point – nothing more, nothing less. It’s a politician crossing something off a list – not a leader crafting a tax relief plan aimed at stimulating economic growth.

Stringer’s proposal reminds us of S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley’s so-called “income tax relief” plan.

In her FY 2013-14 budget, Haley proposed eliminating the state’s six percent income tax bracket on income between $11,400 and $14,250 and taxing that income at a 5 percent rate instead. The result would save the average filer $29 in 2014 – or much less than the puny $80-100 in income tax relief she proposed in her FY 2012-13 budget. Of course Haley didn’t actually commit to this infinitesimally small “cut” – she put it on a “wish list” in the event surplus revenue was available.

In other words despite her publicly stated preference for eliminating the income tax, her proposal would barely lay a glove on it – and then only if there is “surplus revenue” available to pay for it.

These “Republicans” need to stop dipping their toes in the water and dive into substantive income tax reductions aimed at stimulating job growth, attracting (as opposed to bribing) capital investment and raising income levels.

After all when it comes to tax relief, “size matters.”

***

Related posts

SC

News Flash: Jesus Is Not Your Boyfriend

Will Folks
SC

Upstate Elementary School Sexual Assault Case Headed For Trial

Will Folks
SC

Palmetto Past & Present: South Carolina’s ‘Buckeye Rebel’

Mark Powell

10 comments

jimlewisowb February 12, 2013 at 7:45 pm

$86 bucks you say, a whoop ass $86

Gee let me see what I can get for my whoop ass $86

1 22oz. Coke per week for a whole year
or
21 1oz. tubes of Boudreaux Butt Paste
or
6 Trojan Duo Intense Stay Hard Cockring Vibrating Ring Kits, one for each member of Stringer’s Sub-Committee

Reply
jimlewisowb February 12, 2013 at 6:45 pm

$86 bucks you say, a whoop ass $86

Gee let me see what I can get for my whoop ass $86

1 22oz. Coke per week for a whole year
or
21 1oz. tubes of Boudreaux Butt Paste
or
6 Trojan Duo Intense Stay Hard Cockring Vibrating Ring Kits, one for each member of Stringer’s Sub-Committee

Reply
CNSYD February 12, 2013 at 8:00 pm

Typical “new math” from Sic Willie. In order to determine the highest “taxes” or “fees” or whatever the hell you want to call them between the states, you have to add up ALL of them. You can bet your ass that if a state has lower or even no income tax they are getting the funds some other way. At the end of the day it is the TOTAL you pay that counts.

Reply
sweepin February 12, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Reminds me of my Brother-in-Laws when property tax relief was the rage. When it was enacted they were giddy and breathless with joy. Only problem was the 400,000 sq. ft. of commercial real estate we owned. The result of our combined residential tax relief was less than half of the increase in our property tax increase on the commercial property.

Fits is almost as smart as they are. He thinks almost as deeply too.

Reply
CNSYD February 12, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Typical “new math” from Sic Willie. In order to determine the highest “taxes” or “fees” or whatever the hell you want to call them between the states, you have to add up ALL of them. You can bet your ass that if a state has lower or even no income tax they are getting the funds some other way. At the end of the day it is the TOTAL you pay that counts.

Reply
sweepin February 12, 2013 at 8:12 pm

Reminds me of my Brother-in-Laws when property tax relief was the rage. When it was enacted they were giddy and breathless with joy. Only problem was the 400,000 sq. ft. of commercial real estate we owned. The result of our combined residential tax relief was less than half of the increase in our property tax increase on the commercial property.

Fits is almost as smart as they are. He thinks almost as deeply too.

Reply
Finch February 14, 2013 at 1:37 am

Sic Willie data mines. Always use adblock plus here (keeps his spyware ads off your computer), never accept cookies from here (you can change them in your browser settings), And also know that Sic Willie turns over ip information to people, including Viers, even though there’s no law saying Sic Willie needs to be saving ip data. Be warned.

Reply
Finch February 14, 2013 at 12:37 am

Sic Willie data mines. Always use adblock plus here (keeps his spyware ads off your computer), never accept cookies from here (you can change them in your browser settings), And also know that Sic Willie turns over ip information to people, including Viers, even though there’s no law saying Sic Willie needs to be saving ip data. Be warned.

Reply
Joann Kaliesq Noonan February 17, 2013 at 6:52 pm

It is good in that it reduces the tax for those least able to pay it. Sales taxes should be reduced, too, while taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations should be increased and on luxury items. Corporations could reduce their taxes by spending the money on programs preparing people for jobs with said corporations, and then hiring those people.

Reply
Joann Noonan February 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm

It is good in that it reduces the tax for those least able to pay it. Sales taxes should be reduced, too, while taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations should be increased and on luxury items. Corporations could reduce their taxes by spending the money on programs preparing people for jobs with said corporations, and then hiring those people.

Reply

Leave a Comment