Skip to content

Moving from Taxes

by on September 22, 2011

Washington’s semi-permanent residents know how to spend your money better than you do. Duh. Looking at their track record of investment proves it, as long as you do so quickly and at a distance. Even better, a senator wishes to fix it so that they can help you by taking more from you if you live somewhere affordable.

One prominent Democrat doesn’t think it’s fair to tax those who live in areas where disclaimers in chain restaurant commercials note that prices are higher. The Weekly Standard pointed out Chuck Schumer’s novel reason for opposing a tax hike on millionaires and billionaires making one-quarter of one million dollars per year, namely that living in New York is ridiculously expensive:

Kirsten Gillibrand (supports) eliminating some or all of the Bush tax cuts. Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area disproportionately because of the high cost of living here.

“$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,” Schumer said.

At least junior senator and senior lackey Gillibrand shocked everyone by supporting a tax hike. Or maybe not. New York’s own Tracy Flick possesses one notable skill, namely being predictable. By contrast, Chuck is unpredictable in his own harebrained manner.

In this case, Schumer has revealed that he’s only for massive tax hikes if they don’t affect the people who have the option to vote for him. He instead wants special conditions imposed upon earners by area, which is good news for those who feel the tax code isn’t byzantine enough.

It’s at least novel to suggest charging a different rate depending upon how pricey stuff is in any particular ZIP code, so let’s grant Anthony Weiner’s mentor that. Still, he should go further: Schumer ought to suggest changing taxes according to time as well as space, too.

Congress should adjust the rate daily in an attempt to maximize revenue depending on prices, inflation, and other factors that a computer of some sort can measure. It’s both easy and necessary to instantly sock people with new tax rates: we have more Solyndras to fund, people.

Or, we could have everyone pay the same tax rate with no deductions. It’s patently unfair to sock workers at different rates based upon how successful they are. The only way to make it worse would be to allow the government to determine which address needs to pay a fairer share.

More importantly, cost of living is already a factor in choosing one’s location. People live in expensive areas because they think the benefits outweigh the fact that hot dog rolls cost four damn bucks per package. Of course, Schumer would have to acknowledge free market forces for him to understand the impermanence of residency, so don’t expect such a development soon.

Lowering rates until they are uniform is of course out of the question. Chuck Nasty couldn’t spend as much of your money as he wanted if that happened. How can he stimulate the economy without your involuntary help? China is just about sick of spotting us.

To him, the concept of states’ rights means that the federal government should charge different rates within each one. His Bizarro Tea Party would create a more unwieldy government that engages in micromanaging to a degree where your state neighbor gets a better deal than you.

He’ll only oppose a tax hike if it affects his home state. What’s important is that he’d get more power out of it, and that’s what Schumer is all about.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: