Skip to main content

Just a thought about Governor Markell's across-the-board salary cut ...

... which leads me into political hypocrisy land.

Our liberal and progressive friends in the Delaware blogosphere (and I am NOT being facetious with this comment) have always held up the progressive income tax as the foundation of an equitable society: those who make more should pay a higher percentage.

They attack regressive taxes like Social Security or gas taxes that take a disproportionate amount of income from the people who have the least income, while affecting the rich not at all.

So here's my question: why isn't Governor Markell's 8-10% across-the-board salary/benefits cut for State employees considered as a regressive tax?

If the governor were truly a progressive in the political sense of the word (and as all his supporters expected him to be), why doesn't the State employee salary/benefit cut list look something like this (please note: not a serious chart for research purposes, just an illustration):

Employees making under $35K: no cut
Employees making from $36-$50K: 3% cut
Employees making from $51-75K: 5% cut
Employees making from $76-100K: 8% cut
Employees making from $101-150K: 12% cut
Employes making above $150K: 16%


Why shouldn't the managers, supervisors, etc., who could not find ways to cut their budgets other than by cutting the salaries of their lowest-paid employees, be asked to accept a greater share of the burden?

And why shouldn't everybody in the State in the legislature, in the cabinet, and as the directors of all these agencies not be required to take at least a 15% pay cut until they can manage their agencies more effectively?

I'd be able to make some difficult choices, but then I'd never get elected.

Just askin'.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I like this idea, Steve.
Anonymous said…
Me, too.

anonone
Delaware Watch said…
You get no argument from on this progressive, Steve. In fact, I plan on writing how Markell's wage cut for state employees is viciously regressive. It will throw some state employees into the ranks of the officially poor. I'm appalled.
Anonymous said…
Regressive tax as you laid out here sounds like common sense approach. It appears the suits surrounding Jack on stuck on mirrors mantra....cuts across the board.

Families of the Disabled Network were listening intently today to see how the most vulnerable disabled will fair in his proposal, didnt get anything on it.

Could this idea be expanded to include a progressive property tax? The bigger your mansion the more tax you pay? Any thoughts.

Corporate taxes, the bigger your corporation the higher your corporaate tax and franchise fees?

Today we found out that many banks getting bail outs owe taxes...how many are headquartered in Delaware? any tax revenue we are missing out on?
Dana,
I would have expected nothing else from you,

:)
Tyler Nixon said…
Me six!

My problem with government focuses on the middle-management bureaucracy and the 'fat cats', not the working stiffs.

You can cut a lot money a lot faster by thinning out the herd at the top and middle, than by dumping a bunch of the lower-income people doing the shit work at the bottom.

Unfortunately the lower-income people who are on the front lines of providing services are treated like pawns to be either played or sacrificed, it would seem, at the shifty hands of 6-figure earning careerists and political ladder-climbers.
Anonymous said…
The responses are very good ideas but the Governor's plan is a good start. At least the employees had some input into the choice of cut in pay versus cut in employees. The idea of a progressive pay cut is excellent but the example given isn't thought out enough. It is not enough to change the rate at specific levels, one must only change the percentage on earnings ABOVE that level, otherwise we have a very regressive situation where say someone who earned $34,999 has no cut but someone who earns $35,001 would have a total of say a 3% cut which means their net would be $33,950.97. That harldy seems fair. Another problem would be that the bulk of the state payroll is already in the lower pay levels. Still another problem would be the cost of implementing such a relatively complicated, properly progressive formula. How much would then be eaten up in increased costs to the Delaware Dept. of Treasury? Of course there is room for tweaking the plan but let's recognize that it is better than contributing to the unemployment lines.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...