Utah Republicans and Prop 13

There have been rumblings about some of our less than enlightened Republican legislators flirting with a Prop 13 sort of proposal, where properties are assessed based upon their acquisition cost. For the record, I am amazed that Utah's highly dysfunctional and one-partied state managed to produce something that I actually feel works rather well. It is called "truth in taxation." This provision in Utah law makes it so state and local government cannot reap a windfall from rising property values. This is something Utahns should be proud of. It makes the property tax much more fair than it otherwise would be. Utah's legislature has also instituted "circuit breaker" tax relief for those who risk losing their home due to property tax liabilities.

In many ways, Utah's response to the rising property values of the 1970's was enlightened by comparison to California's politically charged response. The one thing I would have changed, is to create the ability of the various entities to base their tax rates upon certain inflationary factors. The lack of such a provision has resulted in most state and local jurisdictions to rely upon fees that have had a tendency to be regressive.

Basing the property tax on acquisition cost creates inherent inequities. People with like properties will be assessed differently, based upon whether they bought their house during a time of residential inflation, or deflation. The property tax was designed to tax people equitably based upon the current value of their property, not based upon whether they moved here when the housing prices were high, or weak.

Democrats, need to be engaged in this process of defining policy options. My option, that I believe should be considered, is to base the residential exemption upon 45% of the median primary residential property in each county. This way, if new growth coming from starter McMansions drive up the value of Grandma Baker's house, it also increases the residential exemption available to counter it. You could also use the mean, but at this point, I would propose the median.

Democrats need to point out, that an acquisition cost property tax, will stifle companies moving their employees to this state, where they, with recent acquisitions, will shoulder the tax burden for those who have been here longer. It will also facilitate complex leasing arrangements rather than sales, and I haven't yet digested what that will mean to Utah's realtors.

My suggestion is this. We don't have a property tax problem that is not solveable. An acquisition cost system only worsens inequities, and potentially stifles economic growth here in Utah. This is my warning on the record, that this is a bad idea, proposed by people who haven't thought through the consequences, and are unlikely to stop because of them.

What I Expect Out of a Utah Democrat

I expect that a Democratic Utah official will be responsive to the public. Wayne Owens, as a Utah Congressman insisted that his staff be responsive, even to those who called him every name in the book. I had a great deal of respect for Wayne Owens and considered him a personal friend. Rep. Jim Matheson? He's no Wayne Owens. I have yet to hear his justification for his FISA capitulation. As a leader in the blue-belly coalition of Democratic appeasers of Bush misbehavior, I would have atleast welcomed a non-sensical and easily refuted response like I got from the Obama people.

But here is a man whom I've had a history with. I've donated money to, I've carried bumperstickers for, I've defended him from criticism from my more liberal friends, and I have received no response. No explanation. Nothing to suggest that he is engaged with Utah's citizens. Has he drank the kool-aid like Hatch, Bennett, Bishop and Cannon, and decided that Utahns are irrelevant? That an inquiry from a Utahn is not worthy of a response because, well, what matters is what goes on in the beltway, not on the 453 UTA bus coming in from Tooele?

Plainly, I'm at a loss. No one, on either side of the aisle, can coherently and convincingly explain why they decided to obliterate the spirit of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The dearth of a response is an indictment against the political culture we live in. I expect such indifference from Republicans. But I hold Democrats to a higher standard. If I am going to share a bed with you, I expect you to brush your teeth and take a shower. As it is, I'm plugging my nose.

There Went Lunch- Courtesy of the Utah Republican Party

from their website at http://www.utgop.org I just read the following under "We Are Republicans Because",

"Liberty"

"We are a law abiding Party and support the rule of law."

At the end, they say,

"Join with the Republican Party as we promote and defend these principles and values."

I need a shower.

Enlightenment Thinking and the Role of the Individual

Over at One Utah, Glenden Brown wrote a post on the influence of “the enlightenment” on the thinking of our nation’s founders and upon the establishment of a Democratic Republic which grants rights to the individual. Last night, I was listening to flute concertos by Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach (CPE Bach), an enlightenment composer and I contemplated the significant differences between his musical style and that of his illustrious father, Johann Sebastian Bach (JS Bach).

JS Bach is admittedly my favorite composer. His music has a lot of power, which is derived from a rational mix of structure, harmony and an amazing technical understanding of how notes relate to each other. JS Bach through his music, sought to glorify God, and to speak through the idiom of music, the power, knowledge, and mystery of an all-powerful and all-knowing God.

CPE Bach was greatly influenced by the music of his father, and borrowed from his father’s music liberally during his long career, first in Berlin and later in Hamburg. But what is interesting and striking, is the differences in the musical language and the differences in the goals of his music relative to his father’s. Like his father, CPE Bach wrote religious music. In fact, I would rank his “Die Auferstehung und himmelfahrt jesu” as probably one of the ten best oratorios of the 18th Century. But the portrayal of God is strikingly different from father to son. The mysterious and powerful God of JS Bach, is replaced by a God that is more human, and humane. The God of JS Bach is to be revered and feared. The God of CPE Bach is one you’d have a beer with. Much of this is the result of the enlightenment thinking that influenced CPE Bach in the intellectual circles he gravitated towards in Hamburg.

The musical language of CPE Bach sought to internally examine the soul of man. His language reflected the “empfindsamer Stil” or “sensitive style” and the focus of his music is human emotion and understanding. The role and value of the individual is central to CPE Bach’s music and is also the focus of enlightenment thinking. Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Hume, Hutcheson, Voltaire etal., placed value on being true to oneself and to the power of reason. This line of thinking is what inspired the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Franklin and others who helped found our nation. Instead of a nation where God had granted powers to the king, our nation was created with the notion that God had granted inalienable rights to the individual.

Individual liberty, enshrined in the secular, rational, thinking of enlightenment philosophy was a dramatic break from the past. It created an optimistic view of humanity that focused on human potential, not on human failings. It subordinated the government to the individual, not the individual to the government. And though you could argue that America was and continued to be a predominantly “Christian nation”, it was also a nation predominated by a Christianity in flux. The powerful medieval God was being replaced by a more personal God. And as Christians argue that man is created in the image of God, I would argue that man creates God in his own image. And as humanity became more rational and humane, so did the Christian God of the time.

And if you want to understand which direction we are going as a nation, we increasingly see a re-emergence of the medieval God that subordinated individual liberty to the whims of the state. The gains Americans made via the enlightenment are being rolled back. The question is whether the train is stoppable at this point. I’m hopeful that it is.

Giving Credit When It's Due to Morgan Bowen

Admittedly, I was very irritated at the FISA capitulation. I harangued unmercifully our own beloved Rep. Jim Matheson, Speaker Pelosi, Stoney Hoyer and Barack Obama. What I never really did in one of my posts was give adequate kudos to Morgan Bowen for speaking out on that issue. This was not an issue that had alot of upside with Utah voters. I had a difficult time finding much discussion of the bill on SLTRIB, DESNEWS, KSL or any other local news source. But I found it significant that Morgan Bowen became knowledgable on the subject, and recognized the gravity of what was happening. And he did what statesmen do, he spoke out and put himself on the record, that Constitutional principles mean something to him.

I first met Morgan Bowen at my county convention. I was deeply impressed not only with his knowledge, but his passion for the principled positions I believe Utahns can embrace if they cut through the clutter of soundbites and flag-waving. The breadth of his knowledge was matched with a determination to use that knowledge to better our Republic and I have the utmost respect for individuals willing to invest their time to our political process and to provide voters with a sound choice.

So, much belated kudos to Morgan Bowen for speaking out about the importance of preserving our rights under the fourth amendment. As the election progresses, I will do what I can to help Morgan Bowen get elected. I don't have alot of money to contribute this year, but what I have budgeted for Congressional races, the vast majority will go to the Bowen campaign and a special thanks to Jim Matheson for simplifying my contribution budget.

Are We To Be Governed by Laws? Or Men?

The recent FISA capitulation by the legislative branch represents just a glimpse into a wider arching problem that is confronting our U.S. Constitutional framework and how it has been subterfuged by the Bush Administration. I've had government officials tell me over and over again, "it's the law, if you want the law changed, go through the process to change it." We as citizens don't get to pick and choose which laws we obey. In theory, government officials in the executive branch don't get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. Admittedly, they often have to prioritize where to place their limited enforcement resources, but there should never be this presumption, that the law doesn't apply to them.

Enter the Bush Administration, the greatest challenge to Constitutional government we may have ever had as a republic. What is compelling and alarming, is the pattern of lawbreaking without accountability you see in the Bush II era. Violations of FISA surveillance laws is just the tip of the iceberg. Violations by the Bush Administration of torture laws, international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, illegal detainments, and perhaps most interestingly, "signing statements" indicating which parts of legislation the executive deems worthy of imperial consideration. Bush has vetoed relatively few pieces of legislation. The reason, he has declared through "signing statements", that he alone gets to determine what is effectively, the law of the land.

The blatant and pervasive contempt for the rule of law, would have been harshly addressed just a generation ago. Republicans and Democrats would have for the most part discarded partisan divisions in order to preserve the rule of law. In today's partisan environment, Republicans in lock-step fashion block Democrats from preserving the rule of law, knowing that enough Democrats will be cowed by fear of enflaming the authoritarian conservative masses, to play with them.

This contempt for the rule of law is why I am not afraid to criticize Democrats when they empower those who would abuse the rule of law. Failure to do so, puts me on par with Republicans, who reject the rule of law when a Republican is in power, but use it as a blunt force weapon if a Democrat should hold office.

What it comes down to, is respect for the law. Our loyalties must be to the law, not to those who govern us and certainly not to their party offiliation or political philosophy. If we disagree with the law, we have recourse to change it. But when we shred the most basic fabric that holds a Constitutional society together, we are exposed to an amoral world, where power rules over principle, and we are vulnerable to those who would exercise power over us. The degree to which we have descended down an authoritarian path, is shocking. And when liberal bloggers such as myself are shrugged off as "extremist malcontents", I know for a fact, our Republic is in danger.

Sorry to preach.

Utah's Burden of Federal Income Tax

In looking at Utah’s tax burden, the federal income tax represents a large percentage of that burden, particularly for those who make more than a modest income. The Utah Tax Commission has some interesting data on their website and I’ll be taking that data and examining it a little bit. The federal income tax is not as progressive as it was prior to the Reagan administration, when the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was at 90%. However, the federal income tax remains relatively progressive. For return year 2006, Utahns paid nearly $6.2 billion in federal income tax for individual filers. And though filers with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $1 million represent only .19% of the population, they pay 23.58% of the federal income tax burden in Utah. Taking the effective tax rate of filers within certain AGI ranges produces the average effective tax rates as shown below:

------AGI Class(thousands)-----------Effective Tax Rate
________________>0____________________________-.22% _______________0-5_____________________________.38%
_______________5-10___________________________1.16%
_______________10-15__________________________2.09%
_______________15-20__________________________2.76%
_______________20-25__________________________3.53%
_______________25-30__________________________4.12%
_______________30-35__________________________4.43% _______________35-40__________________________4.74%
_______________40-45__________________________5.02%
_______________45-50__________________________5.38%
_______________50-75__________________________6.31%
_______________75-100_________________________7.84%
______________100-250________________________12.36%
______________250-1,000______________________21.10%
_____________Over 1,000______________________24.97%

What the chart shows, is that despite various tax cuts to the wealthy, the federal income tax remains a fairly progressive tax. What it also means, is that if you give future tax cuts in the income tax, the majority of the benefit will go to the wealthy because, frankly, they are the ones who are paying the most tax.
The chart below also shows the percentage of Utahns by AGI class and the percentage of the federal tax burden.

AGI Class(thousands)_______Returns Filed_____%Income Tax Paid
>0 _______________________1.21%_______________.03%
0-5_______________________8.11%_______________.01%
5-10______________________8.50%_______________.13%
10-15_____________________7.93%_______________.36%
15-20_____________________7.83%_______________.65%
20-25_____________________7.17%_______________.98%
25-30_____________________6.31%______________1.23%
30-35_____________________5.56%______________1.38%
35-40_____________________4.94%______________1.51%
40-45_____________________4.46%______________1.64%
45-50_____________________4.06%______________1.79%
50-75____________________15.34%_____________10.26%
75-100____________________8.52%______________9.92%
100-250___________________8.47%_____________25.01%
250-1,000_________________1.40%_____________21.52%
Over 1,000________________0.19%_____________23.58%


It is interesting to note that filers with an AGI of less than $50,000 pay less than 10% of Utah's federal income tax burden.

These figures have certain implications. First of all, any attempts at a flat federal income tax would massively redistribute the tax burden from those making making over $100,000 a year to those making less. Also, any attempt at gutting the federal income tax and replacing it with a tax on consumption (a regressive tax), would even more massively redistribute the tax burden. And though conservatives will often argue that a flat tax or consumption tax is more fair, that fairness needs to be explained to Americans of all stripes about what it will mean to their own overall tax burden.

As mentioned before in other posts, I have indicated that Farmers generally don’t pay any taxes. Statistics from people who file a schedule F, shows that Utah’s agricultural production results in a net decrease in federal and state income taxes. Given what farmers and ranchers are allowed to expense and capitalize, every AGI class showed negative earnings and therefore reduced the federal tax liability of those who engaged in agricultural activities. The 17,414 schedule F’s for return year 2006 resulted in $137.7 million in farm losses which were deducted from Utah’s federal and state income tax base, of which over half of that amount or $76.2 million was from returns where the AGI exceeded $50,000 for return year 2006. It is interesting to note that 55% of the returns filed which filed a schedule F had an AGI over $50,000 for 2006. What this means, is that there may be many engaged in agriculture who do so part-time, and the purpose of which is to reduce federal and state tax liabilities on their more considerable sources of income. Now because we have to eat, I do think there are some good reasons for helping our farmer’s out and encouraging land be used for agricultural purposes, but I do think it is fair to the citizens of the state to recognize the degree to which they are in fact subsidizing farmers in our state by paying their share of our tax burden to provide services for our schools, roads and other worthwhile services.