There is however, at least one other approach, I think, to insure that essential services are better funded at times. If so much revenue weren’t earmarked by law, either the legislature or the governor, or both in unison, could use revenue where it’s most needed in any fiscal year. Another approach would be for the governor to be given the power of line item veto to eliminate a lot of spending by legislators (district pork) to help insure their re-lection. Some of those pork providers have made a career living off the taxpayers and the only ones to benefit are their own constituents.

I agree that property taxes need to be revised, but not at the expense of less than affluent home owners, small family farmers, or small businesses that are creating employment for Alabamians. Large commercial land owners or (the timber businesses, large commercial farming operations, etc.) should be taxed at a more reasonable rate. If they lease land rather than owning it, the owners should be taxed the same way and they can just pass along the additional cost to the commercial interests…..who, of course, will then pass it along to their consumers (call it a consumption tax), but at least some of those will be outside Alabama.

Don’t hold your breath waiting on the legislature to make any such changes, though. The best, and possibly only hope of seeing them made, is for thousands of Alabama voters to make such a loud and continuing demand that the legislature pass the key to open that door for us that legislators become fearful of losing all of their power at the polls if they don’t comply. That key, of course, (you must know coming from me) is for Alabama to become the 25th state to have an Initiative and Referendum process that voters can use to introduce legislation that will bypass both the legislature and the governor and be put on a ballot for voters to accept or reject.

Look at that section in your booklet and you will see how many groups don’t have to report certain income, including many former state employees. Many of the people who are in these groups are very well off financially and don’t need that exemption. One group includes me, but I believe in paying my fair share if everyone else will even though I need to keep every penny I can.

Alabama is one of only two or three states that still allow the federal tax deduction. Can’t remember the other(s) right off the top of my head.

As I already commented on Dan’s blog, I am happy to pay it - it’s embarrassing to live in a state that rides on the backs of the poor. But those who claim that wealthier folks are funding this are, I’m afraid, essentially correct. I guess the difference is whether you think that’s a good idea.

I’ve never understood why the state tax should give you a deduction for federal taxes paid, anyway. If anything, it seems like it ought to be the other way around.

Don, from my googling yesterday, I think that Alabama used to charge tax on food stamp purchases, but no longer does. Perhaps they were forced to stop. Here it looks like they were being sued about it.

I would think one big selling point for the plan is that the tax reductions (whether the grocery tax or the increases in personal exemption and standard deduction) benefit people across all income levels. Lisa’s correct that it will be hard to get those who take a one-time hit on their itemized deductions to see the benefit of the lower grocery tax that comes in a bit at a time, but this really shouldn’t be a tough sell for the majority of taxpayers who will see a reduction in their grocery bill and their income tax bill. Of course, this is Alabama, and we seem to be allergic to any mention of the T-word.

Oh, absolutely. And totally ignoring the government benefits the “responsible” people get. I was so disappointed at Bob Riley’s turnaround on tax reform, but I guess it’s understandable if he has any further political aspirations. The PTB nearly took him down over Amendment One, and they’ve likely told him another attempt would be the end of his career.