Rural Residents, Save Your Post Office–Go Check Your Mail Today!

Rural residents of Humboldt need to check their mail.  Notices have been going out to customers of some small post offices that their service office might be shut down and meetings are being held to determine local concerns. The notices announce a “discontinuance feasibility study of the facility operations” at, as noted earlier here, Blocksburg, Honeydew, Kneeland, Phillipsville, Redcrest, Samoa, Weott, and Zenia. The study’s purpose is to “increase efficiency and cut costs.” The reason these offices have been selected is because of a “decline in workload” and because there are “alternate sites within a short distance of this office that provide for the sale of stamps and other postal products and services.”

The notices for Phillipsville just went out yesterday and a meeting is being held there next Tuesday, August 30th at 5pm to discuss whether our office will be shut down.  Short notice for folk who often don’t go to town more than once a week.  As one SoHum resident said, “Obviously they don’t understand the subtle aspects of rural life. Or perhaps they do….Of course this instigates my paranoid, ‘Big Brother is out to fuck us & save $$ because they’re broke ….’ ”

This lack of notice will hurt turnout.  Spread the news among the neighbors before we lose service to so many of our tiny communities.

Blocksburg resident Kristin Windbigler has started a Facebook event page for their office’s  community meeting which is today. Windbigler is also frustrated by the short notice and the lack of knowledge about rural conditions.

According to the letter the USPS sent Blocksburg postal patrons, those of us with PO boxes will have to drive “the short distance” to Alderpoint to retrieve our mail. Additionally, the letter states that we can conveniently access the other postal products and services we require online or by using our “smart phones” — or at the local stores we frequent. We need to help them understand those aren’t viable solutions in this community.

The Phillipsville residents and post office users are being offered access to the Miranda Post Office should Phillipsville be closed.  For many of us, this would necessitate a 15 minute detour into that town before we could continue to our main shopping center of Garberville/Redway.  Should we choose to then have our boxes in Garberville/Redway, we would have to drive an additional15 minutes to access the post office on the days when we didn’t have other chores in the area. Also residents of the town of Phillipsville some of whom are poor and do not have access to vehicles would be crippled in accessing their mail where they get subsistence checks.

While urban residents have access to public transportation, fast broadband and door to door postal delivery, rural residents often have to drive miles on poor country roads to get to their local offices. If  rural mail service is cut, rural residents will once again get less than their city sisters  all the while paying the same (or more*) in taxes.

_____________

* The latest case where rural residents might end up paying more is the CalFire tax  …er… excuse me…fee.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

59 comments

  • If they want to save money they should make Junk mail pay reasonable rates if not first class rates. right now we as first class customers subsidize junk mail.

  • If they want to save money they should make Junk mail pay reasonable rates if not first class rates. right now we as first class customers subsidize junk mail.

  • You check the latest T-S news today? The Karuk Indian tribe garners a cool $1.14 million for broadband, what I would call for an extremely rural area. Apparently the Yurok Tribe already got their monies as well as the notice from our illustrious Congressman Mike Thompson handing out another $1 million grant for a much needed “visitor’s center.” If they actually do close these post offices, everyone should thank all their neighbors that voted for Barack Obama – they caused the problem.

    By the way, when everyone’s unemployment benefits run out they can thank the “Yurok Scenic Byways Management Plan for the “visitor center” that will “allow the Yurok Tribe a public way to showcase the cultural, natural, scenic and recreational quality of the region. When there, since they’ve got all the money now, try asking them for a handout.

  • You check the latest T-S news today? The Karuk Indian tribe garners a cool $1.14 million for broadband, what I would call for an extremely rural area. Apparently the Yurok Tribe already got their monies as well as the notice from our illustrious Congressman Mike Thompson handing out another $1 million grant for a much needed “visitor’s center.” If they actually do close these post offices, everyone should thank all their neighbors that voted for Barack Obama – they caused the problem.

    By the way, when everyone’s unemployment benefits run out they can thank the “Yurok Scenic Byways Management Plan for the “visitor center” that will “allow the Yurok Tribe a public way to showcase the cultural, natural, scenic and recreational quality of the region. When there, since they’ve got all the money now, try asking them for a handout.

  • So, according to Joe Blow, when your unemployment benefits expire, the proper place to direct your anger is the Karuks and the Yuroks? Really?

    Is it the tribes’ fault that the Bush tax cuts for the rich, along with various tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations, cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year? Is it the tribes’ fault that Bush financed his unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq by running up a massive national debt? Is it the tribes’ fault that the financial system crashed, and was bailed out, and that we’re still suffering from the effects of the resulting recession?

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the Karuk and Yurok aren’t responsible for any of those things, so I don’t get why we’re supposed to begrudge them the relatively modest funds they’ve been given to improve broadband access and to build a visitor center.

    Fighting over the scraps of dwindling federal revenues, and scapegoating two Native American tribes that did not cause that dwindling…that’s strikes me as a rather bizarre response to the overall situation.

    But no, just go ahead and scapegoat the Karuk and Yurok tribes.

    • Hey now. President Obama signed the extension of the Bush era tax cuts for the same exact reason as Bush. Why not trash your guy for the same behavior? Why does Obama get a pass? Nice job of misdirection though.

  • charlie two crows

    Joe Blow thinks its 1861 and its the indians fault! Give me a brake!!!!!!!!

    • Charlie, would that be drum, disk, power, hydraulic, or what? ‘) Or if we’re talkin’ 1860s that must mean you need a railroad brake to remedy Joe’s break-down, right? What happened, train hit a buffalo?

      • charlie two crows

        Suzy, I need a blender BRAKE! To slow the spinning down.all the polickital kayass makes me feel like a frog in a blender. All red and green.LOL

  • charlie two crows

    Joe Blow thinks its 1861 and its the indians fault! Give me a brake!!!!!!!!

    • Charlie, would that be drum, disk, power, hydraulic, or what? ‘) Or if we’re talkin’ 1860s that must mean you need a railroad brake to remedy Joe’s break-down, right? What happened, train hit a buffalo?

      • charlie two crows

        Suzy, I need a blender BRAKE! To slow the spinning down.all the polickital kayass makes me feel like a frog in a blender. All red and green.LOL

  • Tra…If you haven’t noticed most of what Mr. Blow spouts is sour grapes. Must be hard to be that angry all the time. The trouble with blogs is one cannot know if folks like him are just being provocative or they really believe that nonsense.

  • Tra…If you haven’t noticed most of what Mr. Blow spouts is sour grapes. Must be hard to be that angry all the time. The trouble with blogs is one cannot know if folks like him are just being provocative or they really believe that nonsense.

  • Great point Dave.

    If I hear more bologna about Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, my head may explode. 50% of Americans pay zero taxes already Tra. How about cutting benefits for the president, members of the senate and congress. They live like royalty. I could have sworn this discussion was about the USPS office closures? Don’t get me started.

  • Great point Dave.

    If I hear more bologna about Bush Tax Cuts for the rich, my head may explode. 50% of Americans pay zero taxes already Tra. How about cutting benefits for the president, members of the senate and congress. They live like royalty. I could have sworn this discussion was about the USPS office closures? Don’t get me started.

  • 50% of Americans pay zero taxes already Tra

    Well that’s simply not true. In addition to income taxes (which some of those in the upper end of the bottom 50% DO pay), most people pay federal payroll taxes, excise taxes, state, county and municipal sales taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes and so on.

    The reason that the share of income taxes paid BY the bottom 50% has been shrinking, is that the share of income paid TO folks at the bottom 50% has been steadily declining for several decades. With upper-income folks getting more and more of the nation’s income and wealth, no one should be surprised that more low-income folks aren’t even making enough money to qualify to have to pay income taxes.

    Meanwhile upper-income earners whine about how much they have to pay, even though tax rates on upper-income earners are lower than they’ve been at any time in modern history, and what’s more, income earned through capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate than wage and salary income.

    How about cutting benefits for the president, members of the senate and congress.

    Okay, sure, so that takes care of what, like .00000001% of the deficit? Now what?

    Increase taxes on poor and lower-middle-income families, even though their share of income and wealth is continuing to decline and even though we’re in the middle of a recession where millions are unemployed, millions more unemployed, and many others teetering on the edge of foreclosure?

    Or close some loopholes and increase taxes a little bit on those who have most of the resources: on corporations that are making record profits, on millionaires and billionaires who have pocketed the Bush tax cuts for years (while the wars and bailouts were paid for with deficit spending and the national debt ballooned to its current level), and on those who are currently paying taxes on their capital gains income at levels much lower than the average person pays on their wages?

    • It is true! Looks like more fuzzy math from a liberal blog site. I’ve heard nothing about raising taxes on poor or lower income families. You’re right that there are many ways to cut and save. No business will invest with Obama Care looming and a wanna be Saul Alinsky as president.

      I do find it interesting that Obama and his Jobs Coordinator CZAR Jef Immelt are shippinf G.E.’s entire jet engine division,115 year old X-Ray division, and medical imaging divisions to Communist China along with $4 billion to invest in 3 chinese cities. Sending hundreds, if not thousands, of good paying American jobs to Communist China in this economy is treason. The hypocrit Obama says one thing about American jobs and does another.

  • 50% of Americans pay zero taxes already Tra

    Well that’s simply not true. In addition to income taxes (which some of those in the upper end of the bottom 50% DO pay), most people pay federal payroll taxes, excise taxes, state, county and municipal sales taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes and so on.

    The reason that the share of income taxes paid BY the bottom 50% has been shrinking, is that the share of income paid TO folks at the bottom 50% has been steadily declining for several decades. With upper-income folks getting more and more of the nation’s income and wealth, no one should be surprised that more low-income folks aren’t even making enough money to qualify to have to pay income taxes.

    Meanwhile upper-income earners whine about how much they have to pay, even though tax rates on upper-income earners are lower than they’ve been at any time in modern history, and what’s more, income earned through capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate than wage and salary income.

    How about cutting benefits for the president, members of the senate and congress.

    Okay, sure, so that takes care of what, like .00000001% of the deficit? Now what?

    Increase taxes on poor and lower-middle-income families, even though their share of income and wealth is continuing to decline and even though we’re in the middle of a recession where millions are unemployed, millions more unemployed, and many others teetering on the edge of foreclosure?

    Or close some loopholes and increase taxes a little bit on those who have most of the resources: on corporations that are making record profits, on millionaires and billionaires who have pocketed the Bush tax cuts for years (while the wars and bailouts were paid for with deficit spending and the national debt ballooned to its current level), and on those who are currently paying taxes on their capital gains income at levels much lower than the average person pays on their wages?

    • It is true! Looks like more fuzzy math from a liberal blog site. I’ve heard nothing about raising taxes on poor or lower income families. You’re right that there are many ways to cut and save. No business will invest with Obama Care looming and a wanna be Saul Alinsky as president.

      I do find it interesting that Obama and his Jobs Coordinator CZAR Jef Immelt are shippinf G.E.’s entire jet engine division,115 year old X-Ray division, and medical imaging divisions to Communist China along with $4 billion to invest in 3 chinese cities. Sending hundreds, if not thousands, of good paying American jobs to Communist China in this economy is treason. The hypocrit Obama says one thing about American jobs and does another.

  • charlie two crows

    My local postmaster (lady) says the closures amount to one tenth of one percent of the total post office national budget. She’s a Tea Party lady and says the real reason for the closures is stop rural america from communicating. She say if the locals raise a big voice. Some won’t close.

  • charlie two crows

    My local postmaster (lady) says the closures amount to one tenth of one percent of the total post office national budget. She’s a Tea Party lady and says the real reason for the closures is stop rural america from communicating. She say if the locals raise a big voice. Some won’t close.

  • Whatever Joe Blow thinks should be left for him to say, don’t you think mini-god Kirby? Simply follow the money. Some of you people (tra…) need to get back to reality. It’s Obama’s gift. Why is it the truth always sounds angry to psychotic liars? By the way, why is it “the Indian’s fault” these Democrats are giving away millions of dollars for bullshit when people are starving and being evicted from their homes? If I were an Indian (and I’m not saying) I’d be feeling pretty damned good right about now, specially when all that “white-man” money is flowing into their coffers to buy politicians to sell out and betray the working men and women.

  • Whatever Joe Blow thinks should be left for him to say, don’t you think mini-god Kirby? Simply follow the money. Some of you people (tra…) need to get back to reality. It’s Obama’s gift. Why is it the truth always sounds angry to psychotic liars? By the way, why is it “the Indian’s fault” these Democrats are giving away millions of dollars for bullshit when people are starving and being evicted from their homes? If I were an Indian (and I’m not saying) I’d be feeling pretty damned good right about now, specially when all that “white-man” money is flowing into their coffers to buy politicians to sell out and betray the working men and women.

  • What’s the matter, Kym? No comment?

  • What’s the matter, Kym? No comment?

  • Joe, you have the ability to make me believe conversation is futile.

  • Joe, you have the ability to make me believe conversation is futile.

  • Joe,

    If you want to argue that investing 2 million or so for broadband access and the visitor center are the kind of thing that’s wrecked the economy and led the nation to the brink of bankruptcy you can do so, I just find it surprising that you wouldn’t first look to much larger factors, like the subprime mortgage meltdown, the ensuing financial crash and the subsequent bailouts of “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions, the massive loss of federal revenue due to the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the lower tax rates for capital gains than for salaries and wages, the zillions spent in invading and occupying Iraq, etc., etc.

    To focus, instead, on the modest investments in communication and tourist infrastructure for the Karuks and the Yuroks, seems like an odd choice, to say the least.

  • Joe,

    If you want to argue that investing 2 million or so for broadband access and the visitor center are the kind of thing that’s wrecked the economy and led the nation to the brink of bankruptcy you can do so, I just find it surprising that you wouldn’t first look to much larger factors, like the subprime mortgage meltdown, the ensuing financial crash and the subsequent bailouts of “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions, the massive loss of federal revenue due to the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the lower tax rates for capital gains than for salaries and wages, the zillions spent in invading and occupying Iraq, etc., etc.

    To focus, instead, on the modest investments in communication and tourist infrastructure for the Karuks and the Yuroks, seems like an odd choice, to say the least.

  • G.I.B. said ” I’ve heard nothing about raising taxes on poor or lower income families.”

    You’ve “heard nothing about it” because they don’t call it “raising the taxes on poor and lower income families,” they use euphamisms like “flattening and broadening the tax system.”

    In his recent book, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry called for the complete elimination the progressive income tax system, to be replaced by either a national sales tax, or a “flat tax” on income. Of course either one of those regressive options would amount to a massive tax cut on the rich coupled with a massive tax increase on poor and lower-middle-income taxpayers.

    Now that his policy proposals are receiving greater scrutiny due to his entrance into the race for the presidency, Perry’s staff is conceding that trying to repeal the 16th amendment to completely do away with the federal income tax isn’t realistic, but they still want to create a “flatter, broader” tax system. The “flatter” part refers to lowering rates on upper-income taxpayers while raising rates on lower and middle-income taxpayers, while the “broader” part refers to requiring more very-low-income people to pay federal income taxes.

    Aside from the obvious moral implications, the problem with trying to squeeze more tax revenue out of the lower-income brackets is that they just don’t have much to spare.

    • I respectfully and completely disagree with you on this one and agree with Gov. Perry, Sen. Ron Paul and Mr. Cain, on replacing the current abusive tax system, with a national sales tax. As a Republican presidential hopeful, Mr. Cain has offered a very substantial and fair argument. Those euphamisims are merely the scare and fear tactics used by the “progressive liberal left”, to thwart any needed changes, to our system and extend entitlements, to anyone, anywhere that applies. Now that’s immoral.

      Maybe we can blame Bush for the earthquake too 🙂

      • So now you’ve gone straight from saying that you “hadn’t heard of” any plans to raising the taxes of low income families to embracing the National Sales Tax plan that would do exactly that.

        Or are you really going to try to deny the inescapable fact that replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax would drastically reduce the percentage of federal taxes paid by upper-income people while drastically increasing the percentage of federal taxes paid by lower-income people?

        Since you seem determined to try to dismiss this as some kind of liberal propaganda (rather than a matter of pretty straightforward mathmatics, which is what it actually is) allow me to dirrect you to an analysis I found on the website of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that favors the National Sales Tax:

        The National Sales Tax: Who Bears the Burden?
        by Gilbert E. Metcalf

        Gilbert E. Metcalf is an associate professor of economics at Tufts University and an economist with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

        Executive Summary

        A leading criticism of a national sales tax replacement for the income tax is that low-income households would be harmed by the regressivity of the tax. This study uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) to measure the lifetime incidence of a shift from the current income tax to a national sales tax.

        The incidence of the tax burden under this reform depends in important ways on the measure of household well-being. If annual income is used to rank households, the tax reform looks very regressive. If lifetime income is used to rank households, the tax reform continues to look regressive, though much less so than when the annual income approach is used.

        http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html

        Professor Metcalf concludes that the only way to prevent a National Sales Tax from causing poor people paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than wealthier people, would be to provide a hefty “rebate” to at least the poorest families. In other words, tax them, then give them back most of that money in the form of a direct rebate or as a payroll tax rebate. But even in that scenario, the regressivity would still be in full force for anyone making just above the threshold at which they would no longer receive a rebate. So for someone just above the threshold (which is usually proposed to be about at the poverty line), meaning that someone just above the poverty line would still be paying the same tax rate as millionaires and billionaires who make thousands of times their income.

        So if you’re advocating for the National Sales Tax, you’re advocating for a massive tax cut for he wealthy and a massive tax increase on low income folks. There’s just no two ways about it — as the saying goes, “you’re welcome to your own opinion, but you’re not welcome to your own facts.”

        • Oh and by the way, here’s yet another way in which the Republicans are proposing to increase the tax burden on middle class and lower-income folks (even as they insist on maintaining the Bush tax cuts that benefit the rich and the super-rich the most):

          The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor

          By Harold Meyerson, Published: August 23

          America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

          Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-will-raise-taxes–on-the-middle-class-and-working-poor/2011/08/23/gIQAEDJuZJ_story.html

          • And just a couple of additional notes on the National Sales Tax proposal (the so-called “Fair Tax”) being pushed by Perry and others:

            To replace the revenue that would be lost by eliminating the income tax, would require a National Sales Tax of at least 30% (30 cents added onto every dollar spent to buy any goods or services). To replace the payroll tax and estate tax as well would push that figure up to as high as 53 cents on every dollar spent (which would be in addition to state, county, and municipal sales taxes. For the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans, that’s no big deal, because they’ll save much more through the repeal of the income tax than they’ll pay in this new sales tax, but for the other 80% it’s a very different story (even when the plan includes a lump-sum rebate to counteract the taxes on some of the essentials):

            ITEP found that the change would be highly regressive, despite the fair tax’s inclusion of a lump-sum payment to all households, which is meant to cover the cost of taxes on basic goods such as rent or food. ITEP found that the bottom 80 percent of earners would pay an average of $3,200 more in taxes, or a 51 percent bump. The top 1 percent would see an average tax cut of $225,000.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-trouble-with-the-fair-tax/2011/08/24/gIQA4KvnbJ_blog.html

        • I see you like to put words in people’s mouths and spin what is said. That’s fine if it works for you but not with me. With all due respect, your experts are dead wrong. First of all, it is 23%, but it replaces all federal income taxes; and it replaces the payroll tax. Depending on how you define a windfall for the rich, it’s also a bonanza for the not-so-rich, because of the prebate. Every family deserves to get a prebate to offset taxes that would be paid on essential goods and services. That levels the playing field, in my opinion, and especially gives the not-so-rich an advantage that they don’t have today under our current system.works for you. The only inescapable fact is that we disagree. and your facts are skewed.

          • First of all, it is 23%,

            It’s 30 cents on every dollar. They way the advocates get 23% out of that is that they add the 30 cents tax to the one dollar sale price and get $1.30 total price with tax, then divide that by 30 cents, which is 23% of $1.30. So the tax is 30% of the sales price, but “only” 23% of the total price including the tax.

            Of course that’s not the way we talk about any othere sales taxes, or for that matter any other taxes. So it’s a clever little sleight-of-hand to make people who aren’t paying attention (and/or aren’t very good at math) think that the National Sales tax would be less than it really would be.

            The bottom line is that it would be (at least) 30 cents on the dollar.

            As far as the “prebate,” even article on the Cato Institute’s website concludes that the even with the “prebate,” changing from income tax to a National Sales Tax would be quite regressive, with high-income taxpayers paying less than they do now, and low- and middlle income taxpayers paying a lot more. And again, that comes from an organization that is in favor of the National Sales Tax.

            • And by the way, another way that this tax would be regressive, is that it would actually apply to RENT. Someone who already owns a home would never pay a dime, but someone who rents would pay the 30% tax on their rent every single month.

  • G.I.B. said ” I’ve heard nothing about raising taxes on poor or lower income families.”

    You’ve “heard nothing about it” because they don’t call it “raising the taxes on poor and lower income families,” they use euphamisms like “flattening and broadening the tax system.”

    In his recent book, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry called for the complete elimination the progressive income tax system, to be replaced by either a national sales tax, or a “flat tax” on income. Of course either one of those regressive options would amount to a massive tax cut on the rich coupled with a massive tax increase on poor and lower-middle-income taxpayers.

    Now that his policy proposals are receiving greater scrutiny due to his entrance into the race for the presidency, Perry’s staff is conceding that trying to repeal the 16th amendment to completely do away with the federal income tax isn’t realistic, but they still want to create a “flatter, broader” tax system. The “flatter” part refers to lowering rates on upper-income taxpayers while raising rates on lower and middle-income taxpayers, while the “broader” part refers to requiring more very-low-income people to pay federal income taxes.

    Aside from the obvious moral implications, the problem with trying to squeeze more tax revenue out of the lower-income brackets is that they just don’t have much to spare.

    • I respectfully and completely disagree with you on this one and agree with Gov. Perry, Sen. Ron Paul and Mr. Cain, on replacing the current abusive tax system, with a national sales tax. As a Republican presidential hopeful, Mr. Cain has offered a very substantial and fair argument. Those euphamisims are merely the scare and fear tactics used by the “progressive liberal left”, to thwart any needed changes, to our system and extend entitlements, to anyone, anywhere that applies. Now that’s immoral.

      Maybe we can blame Bush for the earthquake too 🙂

      • So now you’ve gone straight from saying that you “hadn’t heard of” any plans to raising the taxes of low income families to embracing the National Sales Tax plan that would do exactly that.

        Or are you really going to try to deny the inescapable fact that replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax would drastically reduce the percentage of federal taxes paid by upper-income people while drastically increasing the percentage of federal taxes paid by lower-income people?

        Since you seem determined to try to dismiss this as some kind of liberal propaganda (rather than a matter of pretty straightforward mathmatics, which is what it actually is) allow me to dirrect you to an analysis I found on the website of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that favors the National Sales Tax:

        The National Sales Tax: Who Bears the Burden?
        by Gilbert E. Metcalf

        Gilbert E. Metcalf is an associate professor of economics at Tufts University and an economist with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

        Executive Summary

        A leading criticism of a national sales tax replacement for the income tax is that low-income households would be harmed by the regressivity of the tax. This study uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) to measure the lifetime incidence of a shift from the current income tax to a national sales tax.

        The incidence of the tax burden under this reform depends in important ways on the measure of household well-being. If annual income is used to rank households, the tax reform looks very regressive. If lifetime income is used to rank households, the tax reform continues to look regressive, though much less so than when the annual income approach is used.

        http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html

        Professor Metcalf concludes that the only way to prevent a National Sales Tax from causing poor people paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than wealthier people, would be to provide a hefty “rebate” to at least the poorest families. In other words, tax them, then give them back most of that money in the form of a direct rebate or as a payroll tax rebate. But even in that scenario, the regressivity would still be in full force for anyone making just above the threshold at which they would no longer receive a rebate. So for someone just above the threshold (which is usually proposed to be about at the poverty line), meaning that someone just above the poverty line would still be paying the same tax rate as millionaires and billionaires who make thousands of times their income.

        So if you’re advocating for the National Sales Tax, you’re advocating for a massive tax cut for he wealthy and a massive tax increase on low income folks. There’s just no two ways about it — as the saying goes, “you’re welcome to your own opinion, but you’re not welcome to your own facts.”

        • Oh and by the way, here’s yet another way in which the Republicans are proposing to increase the tax burden on middle class and lower-income folks (even as they insist on maintaining the Bush tax cuts that benefit the rich and the super-rich the most):

          The GOP will raise taxes — on the middle class and working poor

          By Harold Meyerson, Published: August 23

          America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000.

          Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-will-raise-taxes–on-the-middle-class-and-working-poor/2011/08/23/gIQAEDJuZJ_story.html

          • And just a couple of additional notes on the National Sales Tax proposal (the so-called “Fair Tax”) being pushed by Perry and others:

            To replace the revenue that would be lost by eliminating the income tax, would require a National Sales Tax of at least 30% (30 cents added onto every dollar spent to buy any goods or services). To replace the payroll tax and estate tax as well would push that figure up to as high as 53 cents on every dollar spent (which would be in addition to state, county, and municipal sales taxes. For the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans, that’s no big deal, because they’ll save much more through the repeal of the income tax than they’ll pay in this new sales tax, but for the other 80% it’s a very different story (even when the plan includes a lump-sum rebate to counteract the taxes on some of the essentials):

            ITEP found that the change would be highly regressive, despite the fair tax’s inclusion of a lump-sum payment to all households, which is meant to cover the cost of taxes on basic goods such as rent or food. ITEP found that the bottom 80 percent of earners would pay an average of $3,200 more in taxes, or a 51 percent bump. The top 1 percent would see an average tax cut of $225,000.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-trouble-with-the-fair-tax/2011/08/24/gIQA4KvnbJ_blog.html

        • I see you like to put words in people’s mouths and spin what is said. That’s fine if it works for you but not with me. With all due respect, your experts are dead wrong. First of all, it is 23%, but it replaces all federal income taxes; and it replaces the payroll tax. Depending on how you define a windfall for the rich, it’s also a bonanza for the not-so-rich, because of the prebate. Every family deserves to get a prebate to offset taxes that would be paid on essential goods and services. That levels the playing field, in my opinion, and especially gives the not-so-rich an advantage that they don’t have today under our current system.works for you. The only inescapable fact is that we disagree. and your facts are skewed.

          • First of all, it is 23%,

            It’s 30 cents on every dollar. They way the advocates get 23% out of that is that they add the 30 cents tax to the one dollar sale price and get $1.30 total price with tax, then divide that by 30 cents, which is 23% of $1.30. So the tax is 30% of the sales price, but “only” 23% of the total price including the tax.

            Of course that’s not the way we talk about any othere sales taxes, or for that matter any other taxes. So it’s a clever little sleight-of-hand to make people who aren’t paying attention (and/or aren’t very good at math) think that the National Sales tax would be less than it really would be.

            The bottom line is that it would be (at least) 30 cents on the dollar.

            As far as the “prebate,” even article on the Cato Institute’s website concludes that the even with the “prebate,” changing from income tax to a National Sales Tax would be quite regressive, with high-income taxpayers paying less than they do now, and low- and middlle income taxpayers paying a lot more. And again, that comes from an organization that is in favor of the National Sales Tax.

            • And by the way, another way that this tax would be regressive, is that it would actually apply to RENT. Someone who already owns a home would never pay a dime, but someone who rents would pay the 30% tax on their rent every single month.

  • charlie two crows

    Joe
    Oil companies receive a 26% tax credit right off the top for a NON RENEWABLE RESOURSE. Joe its the working men and women that are the true non renewable resource. We DIE! Joe!!!!! The world isn’t one sided as you say. Your the one that’s bitter and one sided. Look past the Neon Moon! Peace!

  • charlie two crows

    Joe
    Oil companies receive a 26% tax credit right off the top for a NON RENEWABLE RESOURSE. Joe its the working men and women that are the true non renewable resource. We DIE! Joe!!!!! The world isn’t one sided as you say. Your the one that’s bitter and one sided. Look past the Neon Moon! Peace!

  • Everyone wants to know where the jobs went, the answer is China. Who sold out the country? The last several Presidents. Who spent all the money? Answer, Bush spent 900 billion in 8 years on wars and stimulus, the current Pres spent nearly that amount on his stimulus alone then spent an extra few trillion on top of that. The jobs didn’t return and will not without radical changes as they left the country permanently. How about Trump’s idea to tariff China 20% on everything, that would be a start. The American dream promised to one and all is gone and there isn’t enough tax payers left to pay their, { Immigrants, both illegal and legal and refugees} way anymore. The oil in Iraq should be used to repay our debt and fuel our nation, the oil for freedom idea is a sound one. To turn this economy around? We need another Reagon to step in and get the economy going again or else we will see Carter’s second term and might even see a new oil embargo to entertain us by odd even days at the gas station that I well remember. Inflation and a dollar worth about fifty cents is just around the corner as this currency is at risk of failure. Gold at 2k per ounce may be cheap soon.

  • Everyone wants to know where the jobs went, the answer is China. Who sold out the country? The last several Presidents. Who spent all the money? Answer, Bush spent 900 billion in 8 years on wars and stimulus, the current Pres spent nearly that amount on his stimulus alone then spent an extra few trillion on top of that. The jobs didn’t return and will not without radical changes as they left the country permanently. How about Trump’s idea to tariff China 20% on everything, that would be a start. The American dream promised to one and all is gone and there isn’t enough tax payers left to pay their, { Immigrants, both illegal and legal and refugees} way anymore. The oil in Iraq should be used to repay our debt and fuel our nation, the oil for freedom idea is a sound one. To turn this economy around? We need another Reagon to step in and get the economy going again or else we will see Carter’s second term and might even see a new oil embargo to entertain us by odd even days at the gas station that I well remember. Inflation and a dollar worth about fifty cents is just around the corner as this currency is at risk of failure. Gold at 2k per ounce may be cheap soon.

  • The oil in Iraq should be used to repay our debt and fuel our nation, the oil for freedom idea is a sound one reminds me of the fireman in Sonoma who ran around in American flag shorts and bandana during the cop/thief of the world action in Iraq in 2004 with his bumpersticker “What’s our oil doing under their sand?!

  • The oil in Iraq should be used to repay our debt and fuel our nation, the oil for freedom idea is a sound one reminds me of the fireman in Sonoma who ran around in American flag shorts and bandana during the cop/thief of the world action in Iraq in 2004 with his bumpersticker “What’s our oil doing under their sand?!

  • Of course there were conspiracy theories that said Bush and Cheney were complete war for oil capitalists, unfortunately all was an illusion. If they had been right this country would of been well off if the oil there was simply to pay off the war debt to free the Iraqi people. There will be new conspiracy theories to explain why what was told was not what is. The oil was sold to China, our jobs were sold to China. The corporations and politicians who were behind this should be the focus of anger. The oil we should of taken never was. The American people now pay for this debt. This debt is now going to apply to generations down the road.

  • Of course there were conspiracy theories that said Bush and Cheney were complete war for oil capitalists, unfortunately all was an illusion. If they had been right this country would of been well off if the oil there was simply to pay off the war debt to free the Iraqi people. There will be new conspiracy theories to explain why what was told was not what is. The oil was sold to China, our jobs were sold to China. The corporations and politicians who were behind this should be the focus of anger. The oil we should of taken never was. The American people now pay for this debt. This debt is now going to apply to generations down the road.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *