Michael Fox

Michael Fox
Location
Orange County, California, USA
Company
Fox Barker Communications
Bio
Michael Fox has a J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School and an M.F.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine. He is a partner in Fox Barker Communications, which provides expert public relations, media and communications support to progressive candidates and causes. His legal career has included clerking for the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, working for the National Labor Relations Board and the United Steelworkers Union, and arguing numerous cases before federal and state appellate courts. He has also published works on Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, and French avant garde drama, taught acting, drama and literature, and directed more than 50 plays. He is Artistic Director of Moving Target Theatre and has received an AFL-CIO Award for Meritorious Service for Commitment to Human Rights. He is also a member of the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of California. Michael is married and has one son, one dog, two cats, and five guitars. He is currently directing the play "In Darfur" by Winter Miller.

MARCH 20, 2009 2:11PM

Why Republicans Don't Care about the Taxes that YOU Pay

Rate: 11 Flag

I listened recently to Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, on the Los Angeles NPR radio program “Air Talk with Larry Mantle.”

jarvis

The specific topic was the tax increase ballot measures, such as Proposition 1A, that were part of last month’s budget deal and are coming before California's voters in a special election on May 19.

But Coupal wanted to talk about California’s taxes in general, and he made the claim that California’s taxes are the highest in the nation.

Wait a minute, I thought.

If Coupal is correct about Californians being so outrageously overtaxed -- more than 30 years after the passage of Prop 13 – isn’t he admitting that both the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and its primary accomplishment – Prop 13 – have been dismal failures?

In fact, neither Coupal nor the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association really cares about the amount of taxes that Californians pay.

What they care about is the kind of taxes and who pays them.

And that's far from the same thing as caring about taxes in general, or the taxes paid by the average Californian.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Prop 13, was initially a project of Los Angeles’ biggest apartment landlords.  Jarvis himself was a lobbyist for the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association – initially concentrating his efforts in attempting to destroy rent control -- and ran the campaign for Prop 13 from the Apartment Owners Association’s office.

The goal of Jarvis and his allies was not primarily to limit the taxes paid by California’s homeowners – at least not those who actually lived in the houses that they owned – or to limit the taxes paid by middle class Californians.

Instead, the goal of Jarvis, the anti-tax Republicans – and of Prop 13 – was to limit the taxes paid by the largest and richest commercial landowners and landlords.

By that measure – and only by that measure -- his work and the work of his successors such Jon Coupal -- has been a tremendous success.

Of course, as a direct result of Prop 13’s cap on business and commercial property taxes – and its equal treatment of all property taxes regardless of the kind of property owned – the rest of our taxes have increased.

In particular, Californians have been pummeled by increasing regressive taxes, such as the sales tax, the gasoline tax, and the vehicle registration tax.

But the Republican anti-tax movement doesn’t really care – and never have cared -- about those kinds of taxes.

And by talking about taxes as though all taxes were the same and applied equally to everyone, the Republican anti-tax movement continues to protect the giant landlords whose taxes they’ve keep down and to bamboozle the middle class voters whose taxes continue to rise.

The next time you hear one of the anti-tax Republicans – or an avid John and Ken Show listener -- strike a phony populist pose as they complain about California’s high taxes, ask them this:

How have the Republican anti-tax crusaders  limited taxes on the middle class or the average Californian?

Why do they make no distinction between owner-occupied property taxes and taxes on business, commercial and landlord property?

Why do they insist on making no distinction between progressive taxes – which require the richest Californians to pay more – and regressive taxes – which require us all to pay the same?

When you don’t get an answer to these questions, ask yourself this one:

How stupid do they think we are?

Based on their success in protecting the landlords and the rich by foisting California's tax burden on the middle class, I'd say they have reason to think we're pretty damn stupid.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
This is not unlike the Republican party's rallying cry about the "death tax." Most people don't realize that they don't even come close to meeting the minimum threshold for paying an estate tax. I've tried to explain this to my father dozens of times, "Dad, you are too poor for the estate tax to apply to you. Your estate is small- and if you die before Mom it all goes to her, tax free." But he refuses to listen. The estate tax, like most other taxes the Republicans want to cut, only apply to the very, very wealthy.
Your headline is quite misleading. On a national level, it is the Republican Party which overwhelmingly opposed the Dem's Big Pig which will inevitably lead to higher taxes for everyone. Not to mention cap and trade, not to mention limiting the real estate tax and charitable contribution deductions, not to mention and on and on. These are Obama's projects and he knows perfectly well where the funding will come from.
Gordon, I disagree.

On the national leval as well as in California, Republicans talk about taxes as through all taxes are the same and hit us all equally.

In fact, there are vast, and important, differences in different kinds of taxes, particularly in reagrd to who is paying and how much.

By fudging these differences, Republicans pose as the anti-tax party, while almost always supporting the most regressive kinds of taxation and the kinds of tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the richest among us.
I am not a California resident, dont have the history to comment on this post (although it seems pretty straight forward and decently researched) but I have to say to GordonO - we are where we are after 30 years of Republican cram downs on taxes and regulation. The top marginal tax rates have been cut by successive republican administrations from a high of 91% to 35% while at the same time slashing regulations on capital. This has caused not a "trickle down" but a "flood up" which is why we see for instance the head of Health One taking home $1.6billion in a year, while pushing down to the consuming level health care costs (this is just one example in one industry).
So before you start to wail on the current administrations reactions to the catastrophic reapportionment of wealth in this country, look at why we are where we are and then propose some real solutions other than more "cut tax and blame democrats" claptrap.
Tim: Great comment! Thanks.
Sorry, I thought the subject was Republican indifference to high taxes. It seems you'd rather talk about the evils of tax cuts to the "rich" and socialist redistribution. These are the fixations of Democrats and the only way to bring them about is to increase taxes which is why the Donkey Party has always been associated with higher taxes. Obama is intensifying this identification to an alarming extent.
Gordon, I was not talking about the evils of tax cuts to the "rich." I was talking about how the Republicans talk about tax cuts when they mean tax cuts to the rich -- and how, in California, these tax cuts for the rich have meant tax increases for the rest of us.
would you be willing to pay a tax that reflected precisely the benefit you get from society?

imagine for a moment there were no taxes at all. instead, society's expenses were paid by a universal contribution of each resident to the public treasury, collected by collecting x% of every transaction.

the expenses of collection would be much less. bank computers could do it all. eliminate cash, and there would be no black economy. crime would be difficult.

best of all, rich people would have to pay, in proportion as they live 'rich'.
"In fact, there are vast, and important, differences in different kinds of taxes, particularly in reagrd to who is paying and how much."

Could you enlighten us to some of those vast and important tax differences with some numbers and rates?

There's nothing like hard numbers instead of rhetoric and sound bytes to bring things down to earth. What's happening in New York, and I bet in California is this:

In New York 1 percent of taxpayers, or 41,282 filers earning $500,000 or more, paid 47.8 percent of the $7.3 billion collected by the city in income taxes. One Percent.

The top half percent, or 19,387 filers with $1 million or more in taxable income, accounted for 40.6 percent.

How many of those 40,000 will get out of Dodge if the income tax is raised by NYC and ALSO by NY State?

Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) argued that a higher income tax at the top end was fairer than the across-the-board sales tax hike proposed by Bloomberg. Most New Yorkers, she said, "believe the wealthy should suffer some of this pain my constituents and unfortunately the vast majority of Brooklynites are feeling."

There it is. Class warfare writ large. My people are suffering, people who aren't suffering, presumably, should pay to alleviate for my people's suffering.
Instead of attacking Republicans for opposing tax cuts, an easy and uninformed positions, how about calling what the Democrats want by its rightful name -- Redistribution of wealth. Just put it out there. Then we can talk.

So, how about it. Republicans want tax cuts. Democrats want to redistribute the wealth. Can you write it out loud?
John, you challenge me to explain how there are vast differences among different kinds of taxes, particularly in regard to who pays and how much.

This is from Wikipedia: "A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. In simple terms, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income."

In contrast, a progressive tax "is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. Progressive taxes attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay."

Our federal income taxes are generally progressive. Typical regressive taxes are sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and vehicle registration fees.

California has increasingly relied on these forms of regressive taxes, largely because Republicans are more willing to support these taxes than progressive taxes that hit the wealthy harder than the middle class.

Property taxes can be assessed based on several factors in addition to the value of the property. These factors can include the way the property is used (i.e., residential or commercial) and whether the property is owner-occupied. A reduced property tax rate on owner-occupied property would benefit the middle class. The Republicans in California oppose taxing different kinds and uses of property differently -- thus benefiting the wealthy and increasing the middle class tax burden.

You raise the specter of class warfare (per Rush Limbaugh). In my view, the real class warfare -- in regard to taxes -- was waged by the Republican war on the middle class during the Bush administration, which drastically cut the taxes for the very richest Americans, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab for such outrageously expensive stupidities as the war in Iraq.