by Don Keelan
Why am I not surprised to have read in Seven Days that 23 influential and financially successful Vermonters are volunteering to pay more taxes to the State’s treasury? Specifically, the 23 had their letter included within the Seven Days March 19, 2024 article: “A campaign (is) seeking to create a three percent tax surcharge on earnings over $500,000.”
The announcement was more than just a letter; it is a “movement” called Fair Share for Vermont, working from the left-of-center nonprofit Public Assets Institute’s headquarters in Montpelier.
As noted in its letter, the basic premise of the Movement is that giving more to the State government can better address essential and critical functions.
Anne Wallace Allen, the author of the article for Seven Days, reported what Duane Peterson, one of the 23 signers, had to say, “Charitable giving doesn’t support basic human needs such as food, housing, and health.’ Peterson further notes, ‘Societal needs are better identified by elected representatives than left to the whims of philanthropists.”
I found Peterson’s comments revealing. For one thing, in my area of southwestern Vermont, nongovernment organizations are on the front lines when it comes to providing food, housing, and healthcare to those in need.
The State agencies, which one would think are on the front lines, are not. The State has divorced itself from directly dealing with the fund recipients for housing, health, and food. Decades ago, the State subrogated being “hands-on” to numerous nonprofit agencies throughout the State.
Local agencies, such as United Counseling Services, Meals on Wheels, Southwestern Vermont Council on Aging, Vermont Food Bank, Shires Housing, Southwestern Vermont Medical Center (SWVMC), and others are the nonprofit organizations that know first-hand what is taking place. The State acts as a super-conduit, obtaining billions of dollars from the federal government, stripping off its share for bureaucratic expenses, and then passing the balance to the State’s NGOS.
It turns out that each of these NGOs is also highly dependent on “the whims of philanthropists.”
Another aspect of having philanthropists’ support is the financial assistance they provide to the area’s cultural infrastructure.
Bennington County is far from the size of Chittenden County’s area or population. Nevertheless, it has seen the results of direct philanthropic support over the years.
Recently, multi-million dollar gifts supported local institutions such as the Manchester Community Library, Southern Vermont Arts Center, Robert Todd Lincoln’s Hildene, Burr Burton Academy, Bennington College, and SWVMC. I sincerely hope for philanthropists’ commitment and goodwill and nothing else to characterize these donations.
The supporters of H-828, the bill that proposes to add a three percent surcharge tax to the Vermont Tax Code, are the Public Assets Institute, the ACLU, the Vermont Teachers Union, and, more recently, Fair Share for Vermont. In lobbying for additional taxes, they have no cause to disparage those with wealth. Senator Sanders has done his share of this for over 40 years.
I will submit two other points regarding taxes: one is my opinion, and the other (which I have noted in the past) is by the late Justice Learned Hand.
Numerous taxpayers have taxable income and pay little or zero dollars in taxes. Much of this can be directly attributed to what is referred to as tax credits. As long as the Tax Code, meant to raise revenue for the government, is now being used for social, environmental, historical, welfare, and economic purposes, taxpayers, individuals, and corporations will take full advantage of tax credits and deductions as they should.
The late 2nd Court of Appeals Justice Learned Hand wrote in 1947, in Comm’r v. Newman, 159 F.2nd 848 (2nd Cir.1947):
“Over and over again courts have said there is nothing sinister in so
arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody
does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public
duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions,
not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is
mere cant.”
What Justice Hand noted 77 years ago continues to be applicable today.
Mr. Peterson and his 22 other cohorts should be aware that the State government is little involved in executing services related to food, housing, and physical and mental health. Your contributions, not more taxes, will go further by giving directly to the NGOs.
The author is a U.S. Marine (retired), CPA, and columnist living in Arlington, VT.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
“Recently, multi-million dollar gifts supported local institutions such as the Manchester Community Library, Southern Vermont Arts Center, Robert Todd Lincoln’s Hildene, Burr Burton Academy, Bennington College, and SWVMC.” I’m sure there was no way that those dollars could have been spend better by the government lol
Just say that you’re from Manchester and you know as much about poor people as our legislators lol.
Chris’ assertion that state government can “spend better” really exposes a socialist/ marxist mentality. Current state expenditures, especially legislative edicts consume significant portions of the funding just to sustain the bureaucracy allegedly required to administer the program- from social services to health care to education, state and local government consumes funds to sustain the apparatchik- before so much as a can of beans is distributed to the needy.
The idea that a wealthy Vermont resident cannot donate to a NGO or organization, a philanthropic endeavor is again, marxist. The US and Vermont tax codes were written to include philanthropy and only socialist, marxist and totalitarian thinkers forget that in the early to mid 20th century, the US income tax on the wealthy approached 90%.
What is important from Mr. Keelan’s article is the misnomer that increasing taxes increases revenue. No socialist nor marxist will ever agree, but the facts and figures bear this out. Adding 3% to the top tax rate will discourage high earners to move here- and be the reason some leave. Again, facts bear this out despite legislative denial.
The “Splendid 23” that urge higher taxation are most likely shielded from- or so wealthy they will pay little or no additional tax because of H.828. these people have trusts, corporations and expensive tax accountants and financial advisers to guide them. mr. greenfield and mr. cohen aren’t concerned with such things, they concentrate on virtue signaling. Meanwhile- small family business, those selling property or business’ to retire- they are the ones that will get stung by H.828. Vermont remains 4th in highest income tax rates, H.828 move Vermont closer to the top- while reducing total income tax receipts.
Frank, thank you for calling me a Marxist right off the bat so I didn’t need to read the rest of your word salad drivel. Anytime I hear that word, I know that whatever nonsense you’re regurgitating came from your right-wing overlords and that you are incapable of independent thought.
So to get this straight, I don’t think that wealthy people should be allowed to use philanthropy to dodge taxes and I’m the Marxist?
By the way, the income tax was 90% when you were a kid, that enabled that middle class living that is no longer available to my children. This country had the highest level of growth in its history. You think this is bad, yet you still benefitted from it. When its my families turn to benefit, you people pull all the “fair share”, “Marxist” crap, rooted in nothing. The only thing more the federal government could have done for the Boomers was take lead out of paint, because man are we seeing the effects today. My God, its sad to see how much boomers worship wealth that they will never achieve. Pathetic actually
The question I continue to pose to people like Chris whoever-he-is is why he would think taking resources away from those who earn it legally by providing the goods and services we want, as opposed to giving it to elected and appointed political officials who persistently tell us what we ought to want, and who demonstrate over and again that they can’t spend even their own money wisely, benefits anyone?
This question always comes down to determining what is meant by paying one’s ‘fair share’. It’s a convenient sound bite. But it’s meaningless. It’s a purely subjective concept. Consider the following points.
That the more tax we pay to the government, the more dysfunctional our standard of living. Vermont pays more in per capita tax subsidies to programs supporting the homeless than any other State. And yet, Vermont has the highest homelessness rate per capita in the country. Vermont has one of the most expensive public-school systems in the U.S., and yet 64% of its graduates don’t meet minimum grade-level standards.
We’ve been hearing the ‘fair share’ argument for decades. However, most Americans would be surprised to learn that a 2008 study by economists at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the U.S. had one the most progressive and redistributive income tax systems of any industrialized country at the time. And still, our standard of living is dropping precipitously relative to other developed countries.
It’s time we get back to making money the old-fashioned way – by earning it.
So, the argument is that the government will spend your resources better than you. Given the ever expanding government, it’s pretty clear that this idea has been the ethos for decades now. It’s not clear that this arises from a citizen consensus or just acquiescence to the agendas of our rulers. Now we are hearing a pitch for extending/expanding this government management of our confiscated resources. Our votes have pretty much suggested that we are on board with this level of government management. We’ve transferred our “pursuit of happiness” on to the government bureaucracy. Folks having any second thoughts on this yet?
Just curious how giving to an NGO is any different from giving it to the government. Don’t most NGO’s get at least a portion of their money from the government itself grant writers earn top dollar for this. Aren’t NGO’s aka public private partnerships?? The only thing that matters is who is spending the money. Someone spending someone else’s money on some one else where neither quantity nor quality matter will never work whether it be an government funded NGO or the government itself.