Hi all...
See this one from the front page of yesterday's (Saturday's) Poughkeepsie Journal?...
"New York Deficits Expected To Grow" by Joseph Spector
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100821/NEWS/8210328/New-York-deficits-expected-to-grow
[it points out that next year's budget deficit is expected to be $13.5 billion-- and 2012 to be $15.6 billion]
But why is E.J. McMahon of "conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy" again quoted?...
...when once again there's no quote from Frank Mauro of FPI or Ron Deutsch of NYFF to balance him?...
[FPI = Fiscal Policy Institute: http://www.FiscalPolicy.org RD/NYFF: http://www.ABetterChoiceforNY.org ]
[recall-- Pok. Journal did this exact same thing on Aug. 6th in its "Doubt Arise That Long-Awaited Budget Will Remain Balanced" article-- conservative think tank pundit E.J. McMahon was quoted-- but again there was no quote to balance this from Frank Mauro of FPI or Ron Deutsch of NYFF-- why?...see
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20100806/NEWS/8060329/Doubt-arise-that-long-awaited-budget-will-remain-balanced ]
[wake up, folks-- this is no coincidence-- and no accident-- and this is not fair reporting...enough!]
[....and yes-- this is one more reason to check out http://www.PoJoWatch.blogspot.com weekly; fwd...]
Why is any of this important?......(email letterstoeditor@poughkeepsiejournal.com after reading below)...
Because-- obviously the Poughkeepsie Journal is helping to lead the media drumbeat for even MORE budget cuts in next year's state budget-- instead of telling us the truth about NYS taxes since early 70's...
[with no regard to state funding for property tax reform, county services, schools, hospitals, parks, etc.!]
Fact: If NYS merely returned to the tax system we had back in the early 70's under Rockefeller, 95% of New Yorkers would pay less income taxes-- and there would be $8 billion extra annually in revenue.
[see: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/taxhistory2.htm ]
Fact: Middle-class NYers pay 11% of our income in state & local taxes while millionaires pay only 8%.
[see: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/ny_whopays_factsheet.pdf ]
Fact: Millionaires paid a 15 1/2% NYS income tax rate in 70's under Rockefeller; now pay 8.97%. [see: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/taxhistory2.htm ]
Fact: By 4-to-1 ratio New Yorkers support tiny tax on millionaires. [Hart Research Associates 6/10]
[see: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=940073&category=state ]
Fact: By a 3-to-1 ratio New Yorkers support re-implementing stock transfer tax on Wall Street.
[see: http://www.petitiononline.com/stocktax -- Global Research Associates 2003]
Fact: Most NYers support tax on Wall Street banks and investment firms based on size of bonuses.
[see: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=940073&category=state ]
Fact: Reuters reported Aug. 12th that "Wall Street bonuses likely will rise this year."
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/12/business/business-us-finance-compensation.html?_r=4&ref=business
Fact: Wall Street (firms on NY Stock Exchange) made $61 billion in profits in '09-- 3x previous record.
[see: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100328/FREE/303289966 ]
Fact: Massive coalition of groups across NYS in support of tiny tax on both millionaires and Wall Street.
[see: http://www.ABetterChoiceforNY.org -- includes Dutchess Outreach, Sierra Club, NYS AFL-CIO too]
Fact: "American voters say 64-30 percent that reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the federal budget deficit, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last month. Even Republicans say 58-38 percent that reducing unemployment is more important." [July 22nd]
[see: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1479&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0 ]
Fact: 60% of Americans support "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy." [Gallup June 2010]
[see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4103 ]
What would happen if everyone who read this email sent in 250 words to the Pok. Journal on this?...
They'd be held accountable for the incredibly conservative bias in their reporting on tax/budget issues...
Ball's in your court, folks...
Send in a 250-word letter to the editor to 'em at letterstoeditor@poughkeepsiejournal.com!...
[...unless you truly enjoy media bias and property tax hikes and budget cuts-- and layoffs...wake up...]
Pass it on...
[fact is that if enough of us in grass roots raise hell about this they WILL start quoting Frank M., Ron D.!]
Joel
444-0599/876-2488
joeltyner@earthlink.net
http://www.DutchessDemocracy.blogspot.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/08/16/100816ta_talk_surowiecki ...
Recall this piece from recent New Yorker below-- and this last sentence from sixth paragraph (ZZZlink):
"A Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support, even among Republicans, for a millionaire tax"(!).
THE FINANCIAL PAGE
SOAK THE VERY, VERY RICH
by James Surowiecki
AUGUST 16, 2010
Between 2002 and 2007 the bottom ninety-nine per cent of incomes grew 1.3 per cent a year in real terms-while the incomes of the top one per cent grew ten per cent a year. That one per cent accounted for two-thirds of all income growth in those years. People in the ninety-fifth to the ninety-ninth percentiles of income have represented a fairly constant share of the national income for twenty-five years now. But in that period the top one per cent has seen its share of national income double; in 2007, it captured twenty-three per cent of the nation's total income. Even within the top one per cent, income is getting more concentrated: the top 0.1 per cent of earners have seen their share of national income triple over the same period. All by themselves, they now earn as much as the bottom hundred and twenty million people. So at the same time that the rich have been pulling away from the middle class, the very rich have been pulling away from the pretty rich, and the very, very rich have been pulling away from the very rich.
The current debate over taxes takes none of this into account. At the moment, we have a system of tax brackets well suited to nineteenth-century New Zealand. Our system sets the top bracket at three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, with a tax rate of thirty-five per cent. (People in the second-highest bracket, starting at a hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars for individuals, pay thirty-three per cent.) This means that someone making two hundred thousand dollars a year and someone making two hundred million dollars a year pay at similar tax rates. LeBron James and LeBron James's dentist: same difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment