Skip to main content

Taxing Sin: We Are All Sinners Now


When a dollar moves from a private wallet to a public treasury, it is a tax.

This year will be a tax bonanza for Governor Ned Lamont’s administration. Some projected tax increases have not yet been written in legislative stone, but it is possible that tax increases in the Lamont administration may exceed those of the preceding administration. Malloy raised taxes in two installments during his two terms in office; taken together, his two tax increases may represent the largest tax boost of any administration in state history. Malloy’s low approval rating upon leaving office – 25 percent -- is traceable to tax impositions, a bristly, autocratic character, and the failure of his policies to stem chronic deficits.

The above definition of a tax allows us to regard the elimination of tax credits and the extension of taxes to other goods and services as tax increases. Business taxes, as we know, are transferred to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services; business taxes therefore are ultimately consumption taxes. The illusion that businesses pay taxes is an imposture that figures greatly in the propaganda of progressives who imagine they are doing a favor for the middle class by taxing companies. Tolls are taxes. Legislative raids on so called dedicated funds and lock-boxes represent, in the long run, tax increases, because the raided funds must be replenished sometime in the future. Bonding is the taxation of future taxpayers.


Connecticut’s enduring problem is that the gap between spending and getting continually increases. That increase is due in large part to an indisposition among Democrats who dominate the General Assembly to control spending. So long as it is possible to increase taxation, governors and legislators needn’t worry about curbing costs. Those in Connecticut who are responsible for having increased the bottom line of their budgets threefold since the state income tax was passed into law in 1991 are making prudent political decisions in raising taxes rather than reducing costs. Unlike clamorous state worker unions, the great mass of voters in Connecticut is unorganized and not as able to exert political influence on legislators and governors.

The Lamont administration insists that taxes put into the tolling lock-box will be inviolate. But legislators already have plundered the transportation fund lock-box by intercepting the funds before they reach their appointed destination and dumping the money into the general fund to pay for the extravagant cost of government, which increases in direct proportion to its extension.

There are two ways to deprive bank depositors of their funds: You can rob the bank, the lock-box in this instance, or you can hold up the stagecoach delivering the bank deposits. That is what the Lamont administration appears poised to do. In the past, lawmakers have withheld part or even all of General Fund revenue scheduled to be placed in the state’s Special Transportation Fund (STF), a sleight of hand called “a diversion.” From 2010 to 2017, the legislature diverted more than half a billion dollars from the STF fund. The Malloy/Lamont administration is ready and willing to continue the practice so that it may more persuasively argue that the impending crisis, an empty STF fund, necessitates toll taxes.

The efficient cause of this legislative pilfering is the disinclination on the part of progressive politicians to control increases in the cost of state employee labor. A deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures. When you remove from the solution tool-box serious consideration of one of the causal elements of deficits -- permanent, long term reductions in spending -- you get ever increasing taxation that leads, in the absence of spending cuts, to chronic deficits. This is the precipice upon which the entire state now stands peering into a dizzying abyss.

And the whole world outside the state is watching and waiting to see whether politicians are inclined to fix a problem that has only been worsened by repeated tax increases.

Progressives understand the principle that underlies conservative thinking on taxes: whatever you tax tends to disappear. Indeed, their policies are an affirmation of the principle. That is why Connecticut progressives have imposed a tax on what they call fossil fuels. This year, when heating oil and natural gas tanks are filled, consumers will be paying about $20 more in taxes for their product.

Connecticut Democrats say they are imposing the tax because they want to encourage people to move to cleaner forms of energy such as solar and wind power. An additional tax on fossil fuel will drive up the cost of the product and make it less desirable, i.e. more expensive. That is the underlying rationale behind so called “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes for example. The use of fossil fuel has become an ecological sin. Tax it enough and people will become virtuous and choose to heat their homes with so called “cleaner” forms of energy, however expensive, impractical and impossible the transition may be.

In fact, most of the showy rhetoric surrounding tax increases is a sales device. Democrats in Connecticut cannot cut spending without cutting their own political throats. They MUST raise taxes, and there are loads of sinners in the state, many of whom have already disappeared.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history.
He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen.
Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

Murphy Stumbles

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has been roughly cuffed by some news outlets, but not by Vox, which published on April 16 a worshipful article on Connecticut’s Junior Senator, “The Senator of State: How Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, a rising Democratic star, would run the world.”
On April 15, The Federalist mentioned Murphy in an article entitled “Sen. Chris Murphy: China And The World Health Organization Did Nothing Wrong. The lede was a blow to Murphy’s solar plexus: “Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy exonerated China of any wrongdoing over the global pandemic stemming from the novel Wuhan coronavirus on Tuesday.
“’The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO [World Health Organization] did,’ said Murphy during a prime-time interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.”