.

No State Income Tax? Craig Applauds Governor Walker, Secretary Huebsch on Tax Reform Statement

Moving away from an income-based tax system is fairer, simpler, according to David Craig, 83rd Assembly representative (R-Vernon)

Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch signaled the Administration’s willingness to consider moving from an income based tax system to a pro-growth consumption (sales) based tax system in a statement issued on Tuesday.

In response to Secretary Huebsch’s comments, State Representative David Craig, who chairs the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions, had the following comments:

“I am pleased that the Governor and his administration are considering a common sense move to a fairer, simpler and pro-growth tax system. For far too long our current income-based system has been, and continues to be, manipulated by politicians on both sides of the aisle through loopholes, special interest deductions and credits, and unfair tax policies like the marriage penalty that harm Wisconsin families and job creators. Rather than rewarding hard work and risk taking, we have rewarded those who can take advantage of the most loopholes, leaving behind the vast majority of Wisconsin taxpayers.

“By eliminating the personal income tax we can put the control back into the hands of the consumer, encourage personal savings, keep more money in the pockets of taxpayers and make our state more attractive to job creators. History has also shown that reducing or eliminating a state’s income tax aids in economic recovery.

“Since first running for office, I have supported fundamentally reforming our tax code. Wisconsin should act now to scrap our current tax code and replace it with this common sense solution.”

According to the Wall Street Journal article Trabert and Davidson: States that Spend Less, Tax Less---and Grow More, “States without an income tax have significantly better growth in private sector GDP (59% versus 42%) over the last 10 years. They increased the number of jobs by 4.9% while jobs in the rest of the states declined by 2.6%. States without an income tax gained population (+5.5%) from domestic migration (U.S. residents moving in and out of states) while all other states as a whole lost 1.3% of population between 2000 and 2009.”

Tim Sullivan February 07, 2013 at 03:05 PM
So if there is no state tax on businesses, as proposed, where does the revenue come from? Oh, that's right. From the middle class wage earners. Businesses were given huge tax breaks in the last session, which created the huge deficit the administration blamed on public workers. How much of a deficit will this plan cost the taxpayers?
mr.chris a engel February 07, 2013 at 04:21 PM
user financed is the only FAIR way!
Muskego Mike February 07, 2013 at 04:56 PM
I’m glad that new ideas are being considered. Everyone that buys a taxable product in the state participates. I would certainly like to see this explored more. Having an actual plan with hard figures would make it easier to be for or against this idea.
Greg Burmeister February 07, 2013 at 08:16 PM
I disagree with the whole sales tax idea. Incremental taxcing according to how much you are earing, puts the heavier burden on those that can most afford it. While I agree with getting rid of the loop holes is a good idea, so the ones that should be paying more actually do. Taxing according to usage with put the bigger burden on the middle class, who are already being charged too much. Leave it up to Walker to come up with another losing proposal.
mr.chris a engel February 08, 2013 at 12:27 AM
there should be no burden. those who use should pay NO ONE SHOULD HAVE A BURDEN! There is so much being spent that doesnt have the benifit to the masses Operating a program or dept. or what ever doesnt make it a good idea.
The Anti-Alinsky February 08, 2013 at 02:37 AM
Tim, exactly what huge tax breaks were given to businesses? No general Liberal talking points, give us specifics.
The Anti-Alinsky February 08, 2013 at 02:40 AM
Greg, sales tax do the same thing, but on the consumption end, not the earning end. Tax buying a new car. I pay taxes on my new Corolla. My boss pays the taxes on his new Lexus. Since the Lexus costs twice as much, he pays twice as much. If he chooses to reinvest that money in his company instead, he will be creating more wealth and very likely a new job.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something