by Steve MacDonald
I’m not sure if they’ve got guillotine logos made up yet, but a coalition of groups easily identified as Marxists has formed a coven of free-market-hating hucksters looking to impose a 3% wealth tax on Vermont’s excessively successful (as defined by the thieves).
“We all see the effects of increased income inequality, as wages for the vast majority of Vermonters are not keeping up with rising costs of living,” Heilweil said Thursday. “We see the effects of insufficient revenue being raised to provide basic services, and we see the inevitable costs of these goods and services — public goods that the government should be providing — being passed on to low- and middle-income taxpayers who can least afford them, while our current tax structure protects the wealth of a small number of residents.”
The newly formed coalition includes seven interest groups: the Public Assets Institute, American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Vermont Conservation Voters, Vermont Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont-National Education Association and Voices for Vermont’s Children.
They were inspired by the 4% surcharge on income over one million recently instituted by Massachusetts. If they are successful in the pursuit, and why wouldn’t they be, they should print up T-hirts that say, “If they can drive away wealth creation, so can we.” That is what inevitably happens. People with mobility can escape a confiscatory government. They can also take any jobs and opportunities that wealth fosters with them. While those left behind find themselves left paying for the spending spree, Democrats took based on revenues they no longer have.
The Communists at the Valley News don’t seem to care about any of that. They are beside themselves with glee, writing,
Now, the conversation over fair taxation has moved from the national stage to statehouses. Proponents of the Fair Share for Vermont proposal on Thursday pointed to Massachusetts’ new millionaires tax, a 4% tax surcharge on income exceeding $1 million, as an example.
In Vermont’s left-leaning legislature, at least one chamber seems eager to take on the topic this coming legislative session. Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, who chairs the House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told VTDigger that on her committee’s to-do list is to “get our heads fully around taxing wealth and what that means, and what the definition of income is.”
Translation: politicians who are convinced that there is no limit to how much wealth a government can or should accumulate will define what wealth and income mean – not for themselves – but for you. “Revenue” that, using every example of government theft as taxation as our baseline, could be laundered into the hands of wealthy people who – coincidentally – are donating to their re-election campaigns with whatever is left after it gets ground into dust by the unsustainable cost of running that sort of government.
And always to the applause of special interest groups who will beg the government to take more while the people they claim this will help will – as always – be hit hardest.
Author is a long-time New Hampshire resident, blogger, and a member of the Board of directors of The 603 Alliance. He is the Managing Editor and co-owner of GraniteGrok.com, a former board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, and a past contributor to the Franklin Center for Public Policy.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Opinion
Only in a socialist nirvana such as Vermont has become, can anybody be referred to as “excessively successful”.They (The newly formed coalition of seven interest groups, the Public Assets Institute, American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Vermont Conservation Voters, Vermont Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont-National Education Association and Voices for Vermont’s Children) were inspired by the 4% surcharge on income over one million recently instituted by Massachusetts.” Instead of mimicking Massachusetts’ mistake in raising taxes on the “excessively successful”, now this might be crazy, but what if Vermont actively recruited the disaffected businesses, and entrepreneurs by enticing them with business friendly incentives ? Na, never mind, that’s a stupid idea……..
Oh, no!!! I can’t afford to pay 4% more on my second million dollars! Plus, I’m going to have to pay my account more to find more loopholes to get around it.
What a joke. For the longest time, the only part of VT that had any type of economic growth was the Burlington area and now that is circling the poo hole.
Moreover, for most economic development professionals in VT, the only job they have created has been their own.
Wealth is portable. Why in the world would you stay
Yes, why would you stay? My observation is that more Vermonters are benefiting financially every year because they’re on the receiving end of the taxpayers (State) largess, which makes them captive to the state, whether they realize it or not. Whether it’s the homestead tax adjustment or equalized pupil spending, etc., someone is paying for it.
Unless the “wealthy” are so philanthropic they are in favor of sharing their assets with the less wealthy; or they’re so wealthy it will take more than one lifetime to spend all their money and want to give it away, what is the incentive for staying in a state made up of folks on the take? And how will the state finance that largess when those with higher incomes are gone? And what will happen to those beneficiaries when the state can’t support the giveaways? But perhaps this is utopia and the wealthy enjoy giving and will stay. Hard to predict the future but I see a guaranteed annual income proposal in the legislature any day now.
…The Vermont legislature is incapable of distinguishing between the truly needy and the deadbeats who come here to dine on the cornucopia…
Taxing ultra-wealth is imperative. Why not, if families and individuals have to pay?
As far as this proposition, the devil is in the details and it seems shaky.
Not that I’m ever in favor of more new taxes, but this could potentially have the effect of driving some of folks willing to pay ANYTHING for real estate here away. Just a thought. 😕
I think millionaire Bernie would vote against this as in his judgement he has not held his millions long enough. Plus, he is worried about giving money to the government to waste. Otherwise, he is more than willing to have you part with yours as a matter of past principle.