Does Obama’s “Buffet Rule” put Shumlin in a bind?

Here is Governor Shumlin’s complete reaction to the President’s State of the Union address, as sent out in a press release:

“I am proud to stand by a President who fights for the middle class. In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama made it clear that jobs are his top priority and he is committed to strengthening an economy where everyone plays by the same rules and everyone gets a fair shot. President Obama has worked hard to put Americans back to work and we are already seeing signs of growth, with 3.2 million private sector jobs added over the past 22 months. We have work left to do, but I am confident that President Obama understands what we know here in Vermont, that if we focus on education, lead through innovation and work together, we can accomplish great things.”

That’s all well and good, but it completely ignores the part of the State of the Union that is receiving all the attention. You know, the part where the President said this (by way of TPM):

“When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich, It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.”

[…] “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

Given that many of the super-wealthy paying far less that 30% (such as Mitt Romney), Obama is now calling for them to pay more.

Yeah, that Obama. The economic moderate-to-right one. And he’s using a clear-spoken, straightforward statement of Democratic values to make his case.

Contrast this with Shumlin’s State of the State:

we require our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share of income tax. But, we cannot correct the tax failures of Washington from the State House in Montpelier, and we must be always mindful that every day, we compete with our neighboring states for jobs. Therefore, I remain determined not to increase broad-based taxes on Vermonters as we begin to see signs of modest economic growth.

Yeah, it’s no mystery as to why the Governor is trying to change the subject. His determination not to even discuss raising taxes on wealthy Vermonters before cutting many social services is rapidly becoming a peculiar Democratic anachronism.

Suddenly, he’s left standing with no one but the likes of Ben Nelson at his side, as even his moderate President has abandoned such nonsense.

16 thoughts on “Does Obama’s “Buffet Rule” put Shumlin in a bind?

  1. Shumlin is bold enough to tackle health care from the State House level but goes knee-wobbly when the talk turns to his  sacred wealthy Vermonters club paying their fair share of taxes.

    But,we cannot correct the tax failures of Washington from the State House in Montpelier,…

    Got to wait for those wealthy Vermonters to part with their fair share until after

    we begin to see signs of modest economic growth

    so for now it’s budgets cuts and economic tough medicine for everyone else.

  2. The contrast is fitting and appropriate. Governor Shumlin understands that if the Vermont tax structure is wildly uncompetitive with our neighboring states wealthy individuals will move, so he favors a correction at the federal level. President Obama is on exactly the same page in seeking responsible tax rates that flow across all state line.

    On the health care issue: Governor Shumlin has argued that an aggressive fix at the state level will help contain costs and reduce long term uncertainty about the escalating expenses for healthcare, and that will benefit individuals, businesses, and government entities. Such a change, if it successfully stabilizes one of the fastest growing budget items, would make Vermont more competitive with its neighbors.

  3. Yeah.  It’s good to see a candidate putting out a number (a ‘graduated’ number) on what the Rich, and, hopefully, corporations should pay in taxes.  “Imagine“–John Lennon.

  4. “Imagine the Rich paid more taxes

    an amount they could well afford to do

    Imagine all that money

    coming from Corporations too

    Imagine all the people

    living in hope, not fear

    You may say I’m a socialist

    but I’m not the only one

    I hope some day it’ll happen

    before the country comes undone

    Imagine Gates, Trump and Halliburton

    saying we’ve got money to burn

    And we don’t know what to do with it

    it’s more than all the rest of you earn

    So we’re gonna stop being bastards

    cause the country is going to hell

    We…eeee hope this will make you love us

    oops…there goes another oil well

    (We’ll adjust for that next year)

  5. A report from Stanford University studied the migration patterns of the obscenely wealthy class in the state of New Jersey when that state increased their top tax rate by 2.6%.

    Result: The insanely rich do NOT move just because they are having to pay a tiny fraction more of their incalculable wealth to the state.  

    To Gov Shumlin, John Campbell and  Shapleigh Smith, Jr.: Raise the insultingly wealhty’s taxes NOW!!!  There is NO reason not to!

    National Tax Journal, June 2011, 64 (2, Part 1), 255-284

    MILLIONAIRE MIGRATION AND STATE TAXATION OF TOP INCOMES: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT

    Cristobal Young and Charles Varner

    http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ecy1

    “Our empirical strategy is based on identifying the migration patterns of high-income earners, and then observing how these patterns change in response to a new million- aire tax. The new bracket was introduced in 2004, and raised the marginal rate by 2.6 percentage points on income above $500,000.8 The legislation was passed mid-year and applied retroactively, so taxpayers had little ability to migrate in advance of the tax increase (Office of the Governor, 2004). We treat the 2004 policy change as a natural experiment, and test whether it caused an observable shift in migration patterns.”

    “Drawing on a comprehensive set of microdata on individual income taxes in New Jersey – a near census of top income earners – this study examines the impact of a new progressive state income tax.”

    “Using a difference-in-differences estimator, we find a minimal effect of the new tax on the migration of millionaires. Using the 95th-99th percentiles of the income dis- tribution as a “non-taxed” control group, we find that the 99th percentile (those subject to the new tax) show much the same trends in migration patterns after enactment of the millionaire tax. There are small subsets of the millionaire population that are more sensitive to state taxation. Nonetheless, the broad conclusion holds even when looking at the richest 0.1 percent of households.”

    “While in principle it is easier for tax avoiders to migrate out of state than out of country, the reluctance of people to do so gives states significant room to tax top incomes. Indeed, we estimate that New Jersey’s new tax raises nearly $1 billion per year and tangibly reduces income inequality, with little cost in terms of tax flight.”

Comments are closed.