Posted by The Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church adopted the below resolution related to Alabama’s tax system on June 4th. The conference adopted a similar resolution in 2003.
Resolution to the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church
June 1, 2008
WHEREAS, since the days of John Wesley, Methodists have had a strong belief in social justice, mission, and outreach ministries; and,
WHEREAS, United Methodists’ concern for the poor is deeply rooted in scripture, where we are instructed not only to show concern for the poor, but also to provide proactive ministries which relieve both the suffering of poverty and its causes; and,
WHEREAS, Alabama’s unfair tax system puts an unacceptably heavy burden on our poorest citizens while at the same time it fails to provide sufficient revenue for state services, particularly those that benefit children and the poor; and,
WHEREAS, Alabama is one of only two states that fully tax groceries; and,
WHEREAS, Alabama imposes the nation’s highest income tax on a family of four at the poverty line ($423 at the poverty line of $21,201 in 2007); and,
WHEREAS, the Book of Discipline states in the Social Principles that we “support efforts to revise tax structures and to eliminate governmental support programs that now benefit the wealthy at the expense of other persons;” and,
WHEREAS, fairness demands not only lower taxes for those who have paid too much, but also higher taxes for those who have paid too little; and,
WHEREAS, the record shows that the Alabama-West Florida Conference passed a similar resolution in 2003,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the United Methodist Conference of Alabama-West Florida joins our brothers and sisters in other faith communities in Alabama in calling for tax reform that promotes fairness, adequacy, transparency, and simplicity; and
LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED that we call upon the Governor, members of the Legislature and other elected officials of the State of Alabama to provide the leadership needed to bring about such a tax structure.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Interesting coming from a group that itself operates tax free!
Remember just a few short years ago, when Riley’s tax plan was being sold to churches around Montgomery, saying it is the’right thing to do’? (Apparently the congregation who pay their salaries didnt think so, since the Ammendment One Referrendum failed miserably, by 64%.) Sounds like some of the same folks are working the Methodist denomination to lay the groundwork for another Riley Tax Plan.
The ’sheep’ of the flock know that lawmakers in Montgomery hide behind the poor and opressed to try to get their hands on more tax money to spend, justified by the popular sentiment that our tax code is unjust and unfair. Case in point: The Grocery tax bill. If you havent read the bill, please do so. Sure, we would not have to pay 4% state tax on SOME (again, read the bill) groceries, but we lose the Federal deduction on our taxes. This is a revenue positive change….net effect, the state makes more money and looks like we are sacrificing something to help the poor. Why cant the state just do away with the grocery tax without raising it on the other end? Answer: Lawmakers who rally the poor dont really give a rip about the poor. They arent interested in doing away with state grocery tax unless there is something in it for them to spend.
Thus is the saga of those lawmakers who are the first to speak up on behalf of the poor…
bmo,
The bill to take the state sales tax off of groceries is designed to be revenue neutral. You are mistaken to say or imply otherwise.
It is difficult to be precisely neutral when working with figures on that scale (and in the future, no less). The Governor’s own Department of Revenue estimates that the bill overall is revenue negative to the tune of $50 million, i.e. overall, it is a $50 million tax cut.
The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates that it will bring in $25 million more; the point here is that it’s difficult to be precise, but the two estimates split the goal pretty well.
It’s simply not true to say that the purpose of the proposal is to bring in more revenue for the state.
Danny
As I remember, Amendment One had the provision to remove the state deduction for federal income tax paid. What was the revenue estimate for that?
As for the revenue effect of the two bills in question (sales tax and income tax) most in Montgomery only saw the fiscal note placed on it by LFO and most agreed that the revenue from taking away the deduction for federal income tax paid was estimated low.
The recent mass pandering to voters by removing the state tax on the federal stimulus payments (refund) was also a revenue positive bill because the lawmakers turned around and eliminated the federal stimulus (bonus depreciation) for business contained in the very same federal stimulus package. The net revenue gain to the state is $2 million.
I want someone to explain to me how it is OK to remove the state tax on income you get back from the federal government as a refund (no longer paid as taxes) and at the same time hear the same bunch want to remove the state deduction for actual TAXES paid to the federal government.
If the people really knew what went on in Montgomery they would march on the State House with shotguns and bull whips.
The problem, Therm, is that the deduction for federal taxes paid generally only benefits taxpayers at the top of the income bracket, while doing very little for low and moderate income workers.
Do the math yourself – if you paid $10,000 in federal income taxes last year, that saved you $500 in state income taxes. For most, but certainly not all, the removal of sales taxes on groceries coupled with the increases in the standard deduction and personal deductions that are contained within the measure would more than compensate for the loss of the federal deduction. (And these changes are in only one bill, not two.).
In addition to giving tax relief to low and middle income folks, the bill is an effort to restore some fairness in the Alabama tax code. At one time nearly every state gave the deduction for federal taxes paid; now only three states fully do so in recogntion that it is a tax break primarily for the wealthy. That tax break saves a middle-income taxpayer about $70 a year, but provides thousands to the wealthiest taxpayers in the state.
And you’re right – if the people really understood how the GOP sabotaged this effort at fariness they would march on the State House.
Danny…You are correct..I do not believe the sole purpose of the proposal is to bring in revenue. But they would not even entertain the idea of reducing a tax if there was no indication of it being revenue positive. And they seem so concerned about the poor.
My point is that true tax relief that causes the state to tighten its belt and cut spending somewhere else is not even on the radar screen. And it can be done, even in our current economic slowdown.