States Increase Taxes

[homebase]

And cut services. Is this a good idea in a time of recession? Some say an "economic melt down".

With most of our industries outsourced and business' regulated to death, stimulus packages dolled out with promises of boosting the economy - IOW prompting more consumption... go buy that wide screen and enjoy your manna from heaven - errr I mean your government.

This report from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, stating that So far this year, at least 25 states have enacted tax increases, and (as of June 26) another 12 are considering such measures concludes it is good and needs to continue.

Taxes increased:

Personal Income Taxes

Six states have enacted measures that will increase revenues from the personal income tax in fiscal year 2010. These changes include rate increases, the addition of new upper-income tax brackets, and reductions in various credits, exemptions, and deductions. Major income tax increases enacted in 2009 include:

Sales Taxes

In 2009, 11 states have increased sales tax revenues by such means as raising rates, expanding the tax base to cover previously untaxed goods and services, and administrative changes. The following sales tax increases occurred:

Business Taxes

At least eight states have enacted business tax increases:

Tobacco and Alcohol Excise Taxes

Motor Vehicle License Fees & Gasoline Taxes

Other Taxes and Fees

* Colorado increased hospital provider fees, generating about $390 million each year to expand medical assistance programs.
* Florida increased fees on slot machine licenses, park admission, and off-shore fishing licenses, among other transactions and activities.
* Hawaii increased the motel room tax by one percentage point to 9.25 percent. The state also increased conveyance tax rates on property transfers worth more than $1 million.
* Iowa increased a number of court fees, including those for divorce filings and real estate title transfers. This is expected to generate about $17 million in fiscal year 2010.
* Maine increased license fees for hunting, fishing, and archery. Several residential and business property tax credits were reduced.
* Minnesota reduced a property tax refund for low-and-moderate-income renters, saving the state $51 million in the upcoming fiscal biennium. [3]
* Montana changed laws requiring tax information agents to report certain real estate transactions, which will generate about $900,000 in fiscal 2011.
* New York eliminated a property tax rebate for homeowners with incomes below $250,000. This will save the state about $1.4 billion per year.
* In Tennessee, the gross receipts tax on health maintenance organizations (HMOs) was increased to 5.5 percent from 2 percent, a change that will increase revenues by more than $136 million each year.
* South Dakota increased its gross receipts tax on gaming proceeds to 9 percent from 8 percent. Additionally, several excise taxes on activities related to tourism — motel stays, event tickets, and campsite fees — were temporarily increased. These increases will generate about $4 million in new revenues each year in fiscal 2010 and 2011.
* Wisconsin is imposing hospital assessment taxes based on gross patient revenues. Annually, this will increase revenues by over $300 million.

__________________

The way I see it is this is just the beginning. They will tax the air you breath, cow farts, every move you make (cap & trade).

IMO, we're going to hell in a handbasket... unless it stops.

We, the tax payers need to start connecting the dots as we are the ones targeted, the governments collateral in their games of politics, power and conquest.

States continute to spend, despite the economy

[brassmonkey]

To me, a person uneducated in accounting, it doesn't seem to add up-you see revenues go down because unemployment is at record levels and companies are going out of business and going overseas and their answer to get revenue back up isn't to cut welfare and spending programs-it's to squeeze the people for more money-they very same people already hurting from unemployment and the instability of the markets.. Really doesn't seem to make sense to me, and I'm very worried about our future.. There doesn't seem to be a bit of a slowdown in companies outsourcing to foreign countries, and our government seems more concerned about ensuring that we're friendly with these other countries rather than doing what's right to protect and provide for the America people. They need to put incentives in place to make outsourcing companies so burdensome and tax-riddled that it's no longer profitable.. They need to put laws in place (as much as I'm for government staying our of private enterprise) that makes it illegal to shutter entire factories, laying off everyone, and moving it overseas.. That should be illegal! I don't care if it's freedoms lost or not in this case because having a job isn't something that people do because they're bored-they need a job to survive, and if you start a company with the intention of growing it large and hiring a lot of people until it's worth a lot of money and then selling it overseas, then you should be allowed to have a business.. This is one case where the freedom and greed of one person can be too destructive to too many people, and shouldn't be allowed.

[homebase]

Jul 8, 2009 12:02:08 GMT -5 brassmonkey said:

To me, a person uneducated in accounting, it doesn't seem to add up-you see revenues go down because unemployment is at record levels and companies are going out of business and going overseas and their answer to get revenue back up isn't to cut welfare and spending programs-it's to squeeze the people for more money-they very same people already hurting from unemployment and the instability of the markets.. Really doesn't seem to make sense to me, and I'm very worried about our future.. There doesn't seem to be a bit of a slowdown in companies outsourcing to foreign countries, and our government seems more concerned about ensuring that we're friendly with these other countries rather than doing what's right to protect and provide for the America people. They need to put incentives in place to make outsourcing companies so burdensome and tax-riddled that it's no longer profitable.. They need to put laws in place (as much as I'm for government staying our of private enterprise) that makes it illegal to shutter entire factories, laying off everyone, and moving it overseas.. That should be illegal! I don't care if it's freedoms lost or not in this case because having a job isn't something that people do because they're bored-they need a job to survive, and if you start a company with the intention of growing it large and hiring a lot of people until it's worth a lot of money and then selling it overseas, then you should be allowed to have a business.. This is one case where the freedom and greed of one person can be too destructive to too many people, and shouldn't be allowed.

In a word, NAFTA

The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect on January 1, 1994.

NAFTA opponents - including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups - argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.

NAFTA promoters - including many of the world’s largest corporations - promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports.

Why such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment - never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA, “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods between countries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.

NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.

Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement. They made their pie-in-the-sky promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term “free trade” attached to it.

rest on link

United States

In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House representatives. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, was considered questionable, and with much consternation and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Remarkably, the agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats. NAFTA did not get the votes needed to pass as a Treaty in the U.S. Senate. That unusual combination reflected the challenges President Clinton faced in convincing Congress that the controversial piece of legislation would truly benefit all Americans. The agreement was signed into law in the U.S. on December 8, 1993, by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on January 1, 1994.