Shipp blasts new tax plan

Bill Shipp rips Glenn Richardson’s new tax proposal in his latest column after reading some of the details from an article in Georgia Trend.

Here is one of his thoughts and his conclusion:

Huey Long and Benito Mussolini would become minor historical figures if Glenn’s law passes.
Think back for a moment. The 2007 Georgia legislature turned in a shocking amoral and unethical performance reminiscent of lawless Dodge City before Marshal Matt Dillon arrived. Does anyone seriously believe Georgians are ready to give this crazy and sometimes corrupt gang of lawmakers even more authority over our lives and pocketbooks?


  1. Icarus says:

    The man who longs for the days when anyone named Talmadge ran the state thinks these folks are crazy and corrupt?

  2. Chris says:

    That article was nothing more than ad-hominem attacks and class warfare rhetoric.

    “Huey Long and Benito Mussolini would become minor historical figures if Glenn’s law passes.”

    I don’t like the Speaker’s plan (as currently written), but lets talk about the merits of the plan and not resort to name calling and hyperbole.

  3. housecreek says:

    The Speaker’s tax plan is simple… Stop collecting people’s money based on an Agrarian formula formed when it was estimated how much money your land could produce in a certain year. It taxes services… we are a service based society.

    Bill Shipp has tried, unsuccessfully, almost 6 years now to derail everything done at the Capitol. He belongs in the natural history museum with the rest of the dinosaur bones.

  4. GabrielSterling says:

    Chris is right. Shipp is throwing grenades at a “proposal”. This plan has already been revised and changed through input and debate.

    I think we ought to look at ways to modernize our tax system. The ad valorem tax (property tax) is a system that was devised when cars had one or two cylinders, we hadn’t fought WWII yet and Georgia was the Georgia of the Talmadges of old.

    From what I’ve heard from the Speaker and his office, everything is on the table for debate. The Democrat take of “well this is always how we’ve done it” doesn’t make it right.

    Property taxes always go up whether your ability to pay them goes up or down.

    The local councils and boards still can go to the voters for a bond, Local option Sales tax, or Special Local OPtion Sales Tax as well.

    I am not fully sold on the plan yet either, but why people aren’t willing to examine new and possibly better ideas or are not willing to defend the current system in an open and fair debate seems at odds with a republican (small “r”) form of government.

  5. jsm says:

    You’re dead on, Gabriel. I can’t understand why people can’t grasp the ideas that ownership of property should not be taxed and that tax should be tied, or at least related, to income.

  6. Ben Marshall says:

    I’m completely with the idea of no property taxes and shifting to service taxes, but I’m not so sure about leaving local governments with LOSTs and SPLOSTs as their only means with which to raise funds. They, as governmental entities, have just as much right to raise funds as the state.

  7. Rusty says:

    This is the most blatant power grab I’ve ever seen, and you no longer get to refer to yourself as a conservative if you favor ceding as much local control to the state as Richardson is proposing you cede.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    On one level, I actually HOPE they pass this nutty legislation. It will be an immediate disaster on many levels.

    1. It won’t pay for the level of state government spending that the GA is used to doling out.

    2. It won’t pay for the level of local government spending that is required, especially for counties and municipalities growing at rates greater than the state average.

    3. After it falls short on BOTH levels, the existing war between them will go nuclear.

    4. After the states and locals are primarily relying on sales tax, the PEOPLE will find all about the EXISTING rules that require INDIVIDUALS to file use tax returns, to keep receipts, and to pay whatever a state sales tax auditor ESTIMATES to be their use tax liability when they don’t.

    The sales and use tax will no longer be seen as “FAIR”, “TRANSPARENT” or “UNOBTRUSIVE”

    I will be laughing my ample butt off at all of y’all!

  9. dorian says:

    Although typing in CAPITAL letters for purposes of EMPHASIS is extremely IRRITATING, I agree 100% with Indy. And Gabriel, you are worng about the bonds. See, they are called ‘general obligation bonds’. Simply put, they are secured through the local government’s ability to tax and seize property. If this train wreck of a tax plan passes, you have just unsecured a few hundred million dollars worth of bonds across the state. And props to Rusty for being dead on. This is all about power and shifting it from the people who actually have a stake in the community they live in to the ones who don’t.

  10. jsm says:

    “If this train wreck of a tax plan passes, you have just unsecured a few hundred million dollars worth of bonds across the state.”

    So this is a good reason to tax people out of property they have owned for decades?

  11. dorian says:

    Maintaining the status quo isn’t going to tax people out of there homes any more now than has been the case in the past. But, to answer your question, yes. It is a good reason. People that have money invest it. I am actually a fan of Regan’s “trickle down” economics. People who have money invest it to give other people jobs. You can’t, with one broad stroke, devalue an entire class of investments without there being significant economic fallout. Perhaps, you are willing to play craps with the state’s economy. I’m not. Richardson has had some sort of serious head trauma or something, and you lemmings that want to follow him over the cliff, be my guest. Just please, for the love of God, don’t take all of us down with you.

  12. IndyInjun says:

    JSM – I agree that the government’s ability to seize land is an abomination, but the sheer unfairness of taking some widow’s $40,000.00 shanty, which I have seen done, while allowing land speculators a conservation use exemptions on $billions worth of property to prevent seizure from happening for their inability to pay is horrendously unfair.

    The legislators I have talked to balk at repeal of the conservation use exemption because “the landowners could not afford to keep their land.” Somehow they miss applying this same pity on the widow.

    I say if you are going to tax “on value” tax on everyone’s value. Don’t exempt those with the greatest wealth in the state and tax the homeowners.

  13. dorian says:

    Yea, well the totalitariam regime Richardson is proposing where every level of local government is gutted is just as bad, so I guess we will be comrades then, eh? If you think you will have more rights when power is consolidated in Atlanta, you are a fool.

  14. joe says:

    I have a better idea. Appoint me Supreme Emperor Potentate of Earth. Send me all tax revenues. Send me all expenditure requests. I promise to approve and finance every one of them. I should be able to get out 7 or 8 a day, except on weekends and holidays, of which I think I will name seventeen. No request will be denied.

  15. dorian says:

    Can I send you one now? It is only Thursday. I have been wanting a Shelby Mustang, so I can show off to the other rednecks down here.

  16. jsm says:

    I agree with you, Indy. This is all part of government control through taxation, which would be seen as an absolute travesty by our Founders. Tax breaks for specific groups are not right at any level.

    A sales tax plan can become a very good plan for Georgia, but legislators obviously will continue to try to control the people via disbursements. If the GOP will rise above this and make a plan that treats local governments fairly, I think we could be happy with the result. I look forward to seeing what this bill becomes. Then we can judge it.

Comments are closed.