Politifact sees excise taxes as costing jobs

posted at 1:15 pm on December 24, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Even while more fiscally conservative plans have been producing results in red and blue states alike, (see Texas and New Jersey) an attempt to restructure the tax code in Georgia seems to have fallen flat. Gov. Nathan Deal was on track for a new plan earlier this year to, “Broaden the tax base! Flatten the tax rates! Cut income taxes for everybody!” But it’s not going to happen. So what went wrong?

The tax reform campaign appeared to be an unstoppable juggernaut that would roll through the General Assembly and drop a bright, shiny bill on the desk of Gov. Nathan Deal for his signature.

The only problem was, reality intervened.

A major part of the tax revision proposal involved the elimination of most of the tax breaks and exemptions that had been granted over the years to various businesses and special interest groups. Corporate lobbyists quickly made it clear that they weren’t going to sit still and allow that to happen.

“We got out-lobbied,” said A.D. Frazier, the retired banker who chaired a study council that drafted the tax revision plan. “It was as simple as that.”

So it was back to the drawing board. An alternate plan was developed which was supposed to anger less people, but would make up for lost revenue by bringing back the state sales tax on food and jack up a massive excise tax increase on cigarettes. Regular readers already know that we’ve covered the dismal results of high “sin taxes” in the past, and tobacco and alcohol are the most common targets of excise taxes.

Well, Gov. Deal received a letter from Grover Norquist recently, warning him against such a move. It reads, in part:

“Last year’s target was tobacco; this year may be a repeat, or we may hear proposals for excise tax increases on alcohol or sweetened beverages,” Norquist wrote. “Whatever the case may be, targeted excise tax increases drive commerce across state lines and hurt small businesses’ bottom lines.”

If you followed the previous link to our coverage of previous tobacco tax hikes, Grover’s predictions should look familiar. After the news broke, Politifact took a look at Norquist’s claims to determine if they were true.

The question for us: Do excise tax increases, as Norquist wrote, “drive commerce across state lines”?

Excise taxes are placed on items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Most excise taxes are on cigarettes. Georgia, like most Southern states, has among the lowest excise taxes on cigarettes (37 cents a pack) in the nation. One news report earlier this said state Senate leaders are considering raising the cigarette tax by $1 a pack…

Our conclusion:

Norquist has a good argument for his basic point, based on the research we’ve seen and people we’ve interviewed. The difference in taxes between some places, however, is so large ($2.20 a pack between Washington, D.C., and Virginia) that it adds some important context to this argument. With that additional bit of information, we rate Norquist’s claim as Mostly True.

Politifact actually does make an important point about context. If the area affected by the excise tax is near a border with some other state, county or area where prices are significantly lower, people will be far more likely to take their business elsewhere, hurting small businesses and costing jobs. But what if there isn’t a nearby avenue to cheaper smokes and beer? As we’ve discovered in our previous coverage, that doesn’t mean people will just shut up and pay the tax. The Chicago example was the best one, where authorities found a vast increase in stores carrying bootleg cigarettes without tax stamps and customers purchasing those, buying over the internet, or just “off the back of the truck.”

A rating of “mostly true” might seem a little milquetoast, but at least they are facing up to the reality. You’re not going to fix your state’s budget woes by selective taxation under the guise of moderating people’s behavior through abuse of the tax code.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Since they created entitlements. You get people hooked on them and then you take them away?
Never.

Without naming an “entitlement” created under Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ, name an “entitlement” that was created. Are you up to the task, BedBug?

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Facts and the Constitution always get in your way.

You win the prize of being the poster who uses the most fallacious arguments. Congrats!

I think you might need a couple of references:

http://www.dictionary.com

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

CW on December 24, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Did you learn a new word today? You seem to use it over and over again.
I’m sure O’Reilly would be impressed, but I’m not.
I have nothing against the constitution, but really, if you feel abortion was unconstitutional, take it up with the Supreme Court.
It is legal. They couldn’t even limit it in Mississiippi.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM

BedBug, when all your arguments are fallacious, why are you then surprised when people point out the fact all your arguments are fallacious? I see you had to invite a new fallacy into your most recent drivel, that of the non-sequitur, to continue with your fact-free and logic-free radical Leftist pablum.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Oh, and here’s a thought for your small mind, BedBug:
Bill O’Reilly is not at all a Conservative.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Since they created entitlements. You get people hooked on them and then you take them away?
Never.
Without naming an “entitlement” created under Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ, name an “entitlement” that was created. Are you up to the task, BedBug?

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM

The Patient Protection and Affordable Act, so that the forty million American citizens that don’t have healthcare will be covered. Courtesy of Barack Obama and the democratic congress.
Also, an ADD to an entitlement, Medicare D, courtesy of President Bush and the republican congress.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM

The Patient Protection and Affordable Act, so that the forty million American citizens that don’t have healthcare will be covered. Courtesy of Barack Obama and the democratic congress.
Also, an ADD to an entitlement, Medicare D, courtesy of President Bush and the republican congress.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM

They’re kinda cute at this age, aren’t they? LOL

ManWithNoParty on December 24, 2011 at 4:55 PM

The Patient Protection and Affordable Act, so that the forty million American citizens that don’t have healthcare will be covered. Courtesy of Barack Obama and the democratic congress.
Also, an ADD to an entitlement, Medicare D, courtesy of President Bush and the republican congress.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM
They’re kinda cute at this age, aren’t they? LOL

ManWithNoParty on December 24, 2011 at 4:55 PM

You add so MUCH to the conversation.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:55 PM

So, the only “they” that BedBug could say created an “entitlement” not included in the Big Three “They” is the current Democrat (Socialist) President. So all the “entitlements” “they” created to get people hooked on government largess were created by Democrats. And yet BedBug claims “you” created them, getting people hooked on them, only to want to take them away. BedBug doesn’t even realize his own fallacy and his own culpability in supporting the Democrats, who created a society full of addicts.

Democracy can only survive until the masses learn they can vote themselves money from government largess. — a rather famous (and correct) person

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

So, the only “they” that BedBug could say created an “entitlement” not included in the Big Three “They” is the current Democrat (Socialist) President. So all the “entitlements” “they” created to get people hooked on government largess were created by Democrats. And yet BedBug claims “you” created them, getting people hooked on them, only to want to take them away. BedBug doesn’t even realize his own fallacy and his own culpability in supporting the Democrats, who created a society full of addicts.

Democracy can only survive until the masses learn they can vote themselves money from government largess. — a rather famous (and correct) person

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:01 PM

They help people out. They help the elderly and those not as fortunate as you. And, since when did George W. Bush become a democrat? Yes, you forgot Medicare Part D.
Square that.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

They help people out. They help the elderly and those not as fortunate as you. And, since when did George W. Bush become a democrat? Yes, you forgot Medicare Part D.
Square that.

How fortunate am I? 2008, my best income year ever, I earned roughly 34k. 2009, it was roughly 7k, 2010 and roughly 3k. This year, now that I have gotten another job, it’ll be roughly 3k again. Yup, I’m fortunate. But I’m not addicted to stealing money out of New Jerseyite wallets.

And no, I did not forget GWB and Medicare Part D. You, yourself, admitted it was an add-on to an already created “entitlement” thereby rebutting yourself before you stepped in it. But who created the “entitlement” GWB added on to, since it has already been established GWB did not create said “entitlement”?

Do try to use logic. I know it’s difficult for your radical Leftist brain since you’ve never tried before, but grow a little, mmkay?

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:14 PM

And no, I did not forget GWB and Medicare Part D. You, yourself, admitted it was an add-on to an already created “entitlement” thereby rebutting yourself before you stepped in it. But who created the “entitlement” GWB added on to, since it has already been established GWB did not create said “entitlement”?

Do try to use logic. I know it’s difficult for your radical Leftist brain since you’ve never tried before, but grow a little, mmkay?

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Yes, but it was a COSTLY portion of Medicare Part D and according to your logic, only liberals can create entitlements. He CREATED Part D. And he is a republican.
If you needed help, there would be help for you. If you choose to fall, that’s your problem.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM

How have I survived? The old way. The way before the unconstitutional “entitlement” programs were created. My mother, two brothers, sister, aunts, daughter, son-in-law all helped me out since I was ineligible for unemployment checks. Imagine that. Helping hands by choice instead of “threat of prison” government coercion. How Republican. How Founder/Framer.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM

How have I survived? The old way. The way before the unconstitutional “entitlement” programs were created. My mother, two brothers, sister, aunts, daughter, son-in-law all helped me out since I was ineligible for unemployment checks. Imagine that. Helping hands by choice instead of “threat of prison” government coercion. How Republican. How Founder/Framer.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Good for you. Not everyone has that type of family structure or their family might be in the same trouble they are in.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:20 PM

BedBug, do try to use logic. I know since you’re a Liberal, logic is as foreign to you as personal responsibility, but you should at least put forth some effort.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM

BedBug, do try to use logic. I know since you’re a Liberal, logic is as foreign to you as personal responsibility, but you should at least put forth some effort.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM

What? That’s it?
Sad.
Oh well, I’m bored.
Merry Christmas.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:24 PM

help the elderly and those not as fortunate as you. And, since when did George W. Bush become a democrat? Yes, you forgot Medicare Part D.
Square that.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

HERE’S the huge disparity of the two issues you are erroneously and irrationally trying to mesh together as “one” thing:

Medicare is a program to assist the elderly and the disabled who have a tax-paying history as former “workers”.

It exists to assist persons who have a fixed income and are not expected to return to work, and, consequently, are not expected to ever earn more income than what they already have earned.

ON THE OTHER HAND, you’re promoting Obama and Democrats’ plans to provide for people of any age who have their entire lives ahead of them in which they also will enjoy many an income-earning opportunity (unlike the elderly and the disabled).

So the two processes there are entirely not comparable.

I also note that Medicare (for the elderly and the disabled) has become the target of jealous Leftwingers, such that because the elderly and disabled are being somewhat assisted, that the Leftwingers are attempting to seize the same resources from other taxpayers based NOT upon age and disability but upon “class” and “favoritism” — in other words, because they’re deemed to be ‘deserving’ in a class system based upon political association.

Lourdes on December 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Hey how about we tax lawyers and politicians for every lie they tell! Say $100, I bet we pay off the debt in a year!

Africanus on December 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Persons you describe as “deserving” and/or “less deserving”…

Lourdes on December 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM

If you needed help, there would be help for you. If you choose to fall, that’s your problem.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Again, what you’re evidencing is that, per that statement as also in others here, anyone who aligns with, relies upon, the Left/Democrats/Obama/political-class, will be “helped” while anyone who doesn’t will “fall”.

Communism, is what you’re advocating. A communist dictatorship, a one-party “rule”, etc.

Lourdes on December 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Corporate lobbyists quickly made it clear that they weren’t going to sit still and allow that to happen.

See the OWS framing? It’s clear the politicians had a price on their votes and one side was able to pay more than the other.

p0s3r on December 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Since they created entitlements. You get people hooked on them and then you take them away?
Never.
It is everyone’s place, including the government, to help out their fellow man.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Damn straight you take them away. You wouldn’t have a problem ending a tax cut on the “rich”, therefor taking more of the money (by force) they earned but you have a problem ending a free ride by NOT giving money to someone who didn’t earn it?

That’s completely warped.

It is not my “place” to be forced to help anyone. I pick and choose who I wish to help and if I wish to attach strings to that “help”, it’s my right to do so.

The government is incapable of “helping” one person without first harming another. When you say, the government should help them! What you’re really saying is someone other than myself, should help them and if my neighbor won’t do it willingly, they must be forced to help.

Wendya on December 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Politifact is not a valid source for anything. You cut your own credibility when you act like they do. The whole idea of an Orwellian “fact checker” run by journalists is absurd.Politifact was created by the left to manage everyones’ facts . It’s nuts
LeeSeneca on December 24, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I agree. I don’t want Politifact sourced as proof of fact.

Wigglesworth on December 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM

For those who cry foul over the use of PolitiFact as a reliable source, I have a logic exercise to perform.

Fact 1: PolitiFact is inaccurate.

Fact 2: PolitiFact is inaccurate because it has a Liberal agenda (thereby showing the direction of bias in its inaccuracies).

Fact 3: PolitiFact declared a Democrat talking point to be decidedly false (or showed a Republican talking point to be “mostly true”).

Fact 4: Using Fact 2 and Fact 3, when even PolitiFact calls out a Democrat talking point to be clearly untrue, the Democrats have a major problem. Likewise, when PolitiFact has to come out and say a Republican talking point is “mostly true,” again, the Democrats have a major problem.

This exercise can be used with many other Liberal outfits, such as PPP and its heavy Liberal bias, as in its studiously over-representing Democrats in its poll weighting. When even PPP says Democrats are in deep trouble, that means Democrats are indeed in deep trouble. One can use this exercise to use the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other Liberal outfits as a source when pointing out the fallacies of Liberalism. It gets more difficult when dealing with Time magazine and like sources, and nigh upon impossible when dealing with Newsweak, MSNBC, PuffHo, The Lost Kos, anything Brett Kimberlain (along with his convicted Indianapolis bomber and unrepentant terrorist friend who to this day refuses to pay court-mandated reparations to his victims) and a couple Pollutico authors write.

But when clearly Liberal outfits like PolitiFact skewer Democrats, it is indeed a powerful tool to use against the Liberal agenda. For one, it removes the “kill the messenger” tactic Liberals use against any Centrist or Conservative information center.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Did you learn a new word today? You seem to use it over and over again.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM

The irony. You did it again. You’re funny.

You do realize that just because one court finds something to be legal does not make it right, ethical, or even truly constitutional. I am sure you would have been saying the same tires lines to the anti-slavery crowd right??? Yeh right./

You’re a hoot. Not much more than an emotional twit.

CW on December 24, 2011 at 10:10 PM

I understand helping your fellow man but by choice. What happened to helping yourself? Go to Chnia Town in Houston which covers Asiains from around the world and you will find people that were boat people that have made thier own way through the American Dream that as Americans some people do not realize because they have been told that they have been left behind. Our poor here are upper middle class in the rest of the world. Chris Rock said he had been around the world and the world would love to live in the Projects. With goverment handouts you will only go so far but with your own will power and mostly hard work but sometimes with a gimmic you can become the 1%.After all you do not see anybody on a intertube floating to Cuba.

rocrio15 on December 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Did you learn a new word today? You seem to use it over and over again.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 4:44 PM
The irony. You did it again. You’re funny.

You do realize that just because one court finds something to be legal does not make it right, ethical, or even truly constitutional. I am sure you would have been saying the same tires lines to the anti-slavery crowd right??? Yeh right./

You’re a hoot. Not much more than an emotional twit.

CW on December 24, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Wait until BB finds out about the 2% Recapture Tax in the Tax cut bill.

RickB on December 24, 2011 at 11:28 PM

After all you do not see anybody on a intertube floating to Cuba.

rocrio15 on December 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM

That day may come since Cuba allows drilling for oil off its coasts and our government seems determined to shut down our drilling for fossil fuel in exchange for unreliable solar and windpower that will cost so much that along with the costs of Obamacare our power using industries will all shut down. But since the left can’t stand seeing wealth aquisition by other than government fiat, they may well call such a day’s coming success.

Calling for surtaxes on the highest income tax rates at the same time that the left demands that capital gains and dividends be taxed at the regular personal income rates means that after the corporate income tax of 35% is paid, and a 43% personal income tax is paid and in new York our new State plus City combined rate of 12% ; this will result in the “successful investor” getting only about 30% of what their investment actually returns. But listen to the left howl when the investments go elsewhere to avoid the onerous tax burden. Think they will take responsibility for taxing wealth creation into oblivion? No they will blame it on the greedy people who had the initiative and talent to create a product or service the 99% want to buy.

KW64 on December 24, 2011 at 11:43 PM

For those who cry foul over the use of PolitiFact as a reliable source, I have a logic exercise to perform.

Fact 1: PolitiFact is inaccurate.

Fact 2: PolitiFact is inaccurate because it has a Liberal agenda (thereby showing the direction of bias in its inaccuracies).

Fact 3: PolitiFact declared a Democrat talking point to be decidedly false (or showed a Republican talking point to be “mostly true”).

Fact 4: Using Fact 2 and Fact 3, when even PolitiFact calls out a Democrat talking point to be clearly untrue, the Democrats have a major problem. Likewise, when PolitiFact has to come out and say a Republican talking point is “mostly true,” again, the Democrats have a major problem.

This exercise can be used with many other Liberal outfits, such as PPP and its heavy Liberal bias, as in its studiously over-representing Democrats in its poll weighting. When even PPP says Democrats are in deep trouble, that means Democrats are indeed in deep trouble. One can use this exercise to use the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other Liberal outfits as a source when pointing out the fallacies of Liberalism. It gets more difficult when dealing with Time magazine and like sources, and nigh upon impossible when dealing with Newsweak, MSNBC, PuffHo, The Lost Kos, anything Brett Kimberlain (along with his convicted Indianapolis bomber and unrepentant terrorist friend who to this day refuses to pay court-mandated reparations to his victims) and a couple Pollutico authors write.

But when clearly Liberal outfits like PolitiFact skewer Democrats, it is indeed a powerful tool to use against the Liberal agenda. For one, it removes the “kill the messenger” tactic Liberals use against any Centrist or Conservative information center.

John Hitchcock on December 24, 2011 at 8:59 PM

It’s certainly true that you can use Politifact as a club against liberal claims, and that’s exactly what Ed is doing here.

Or, as I like to think of it, the “Even Politifact says…” approach.

I simply object to lending Politifact any legitimacy they have not earned. If you quote them at all, it needs to be in the context of acknowledging that they are hardly friendly to conservative arguments, or that they are biased towards the left.

Because they are. It’s too tempting to jump on those occasions when Politifact makes a point like this and start quoting them as an authority, which gives the impression that you accept their judgement.

Michele Bachmann ran into this problem in a debate, when she cited a Politifact article that backed up her position on one thing, and Politifact immediately rushed out an article citing her as, basically, a liar, because they had not backed up her position except in that one area.

By citing them as an authority, she gave them extra credibility when they called her a liar. This was a self-inflicted wound, that should have been completely predictable.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 25, 2011 at 3:26 AM

They still pay state and local taxes and payroll taxes.

BedBug on December 24, 2011 at 3:10 PM

So, if they pay all those other taxes, how is it that they are, somehow, exempt from any federal taxes?
If they have a job and pay taxes to the state – and payroll taxes – they should be paying federal taxes.

The simple fact is, that 47% don’t work, don’t pay any taxes – and expect the productive members of society to take care of them and support them in a style to which they wish to become accustomed.
And they – like you – whine and snivel when the producers become tired of being robbed to support their indolence.

As far as tax cuts and increased revenue go, try this…..
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc85/Mamba1-0/1980-88-Laffer.jpg

Solaratov on December 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM

They’re kinda cute at this age, aren’t they? LOL

ManWithNoParty on December 24, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Yeah, but they tend to piddle on the floor – so you have to smack’em on the nose with a newspaper to show them the error of their ways.

Solaratov on December 25, 2011 at 12:35 PM

The government is incapable of “helping” one person without first harming another. When you say, the government should help them! What you’re really saying is someone other than myself, should help them and if my neighbor won’t do it willingly, they must be forced to help.

Wendya on December 24, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Perfect!

Well said.

Solaratov on December 25, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Excise taxes in my industry have driven producers,you know John Galt types,overseas. Fishing tackle mfg. must pay 10% excise on any product the first time that product is sold.
If I sell a fishing rod here in the US for $100.00 I pay roughly $10.00 in excise tax. A little less but for conversation sake its ten bucks.
My competitors buying or building in China who sell to huge importers over here and buy from Chinese companies making similar rods in china pay two or three bucks. No more and many less than that.
US producers of any volume never have a prayer.

rodguy911 on December 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM

When travelling, I only patronize hostelries which guarantee themselves free of bedbugs.

I am instituting the same policy with threads at Hot Air.

Siddhartha Vicious on December 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Simple solution but not likable is to get rid of the entitlement programs that are sucking up a lot of money and posters are correct, once the entitlement starts it’s next to impossible to stop. Starting with the countries of Europe who were too broke to have a military depended on our forces to provide the protection and the money was not used to build their own but it was there to provide government jobs (entitlements) is a better word. Look at Greece, the pensions broke their back.

It’s the same here in the USA where just about everything is taxed in one way or another and the politicians are running out of things to tax, instead they just increase the taxes. Now take a look at this listing and ask yourself, what do they really do to provide a taxable product? The long story short is these are federal entitlements stuffed full of federal employees all trying to justify their paycheck and not one product is manufactured, grown, pumped or harvested.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All-Agencies/index.shtml

mixplix on December 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2