_Schneebley t1_j0s08z9 wrote

> The tax code should fit on a single 8.5x11 sheet of paper, otherwise it's purpose is to pick winners and punish others.

I don't think many people will disagree with simplifying the tax code (which should happen on the Federal level to begin with), but, you're acting like you don't live in a very capitalistic society which inherently chooses winners and losers everyday. Refusing to participate in that now when it's full steam ahead is just illogical and would do nothing to help the state's ongoing problems.


_Schneebley t1_j0ryk6x wrote

We’re incentivizing people to STAY and WORK, and here’s the shocker, IN MAINE

You know, that little state with an aging population that needs a younger workforce? It would help to have some new taxpayers here.

I know, it’s such a weird concept to grasp. Maybe based on you logic, we shouldn’t “subsidize” businesses because there are tax credits they can claim too?


_Schneebley t1_j0raqpx wrote

I understand what you're saying, and it's true it will be handicapping some people, but it appears the state says that the median credit was $2,000 prior to this. And with it seemingly being a refundable credit now, the new $2,500 tax credit will actually be a boost to at least half the people who claimed the EOTC. I dare say a lot more than that even because there were also people who fell under the "nonrefundable" degrees and were handicapped even more, particularly the people who were perhaps on Income-Base Repayments and other programs.


_Schneebley t1_j0ra4vl wrote

So it seems, without the full language of this, that they did away with the STEM/Non-STEM separation for nonrefundable and refundable credits, and are just doing straight refundable credits for all degrees post 2007, up to $2,500 year and $25,000 lifetime. So basically 10 years of $2,500k tax credit, which you can be refunded on beyond what you owe for taxes for the year.


_Schneebley t1_iydsht3 wrote

Exactly, The Fed can only do basically 2 things, raise interest rates to curb inflation and purchase assets (and lower interest rates) during an economic crisis. Thats...it... They don't control spending, taxation, ect. They only control the money supply and provide liquidity to the market. Federal Reserve is only reactionary to what Capitol Hill is doing and the economy at large.


_Schneebley t1_ir8311k wrote

I don't think it wasn't that he wasn't a polished public speaker, he didn't show any depth of knowledge in terms of policy or public service.

It's easy to go up there and be like "we need more jobs, we need better schools, we need more programs" but that's just feel good blanket talking points. The only time he broke the mold was bringing up raising the Mill Rate & mentioned the Homestead Exemption, but the raising the mill rate is a) unpopular because you're putting bigger stress on local funding of the budget and b) likely illegal to manipulate because it can be legally argued as discrimination. That and Mills and LePage also already said they agreed with the homestead exemption. See Janet Mill's policy here.

I think people get starry eyed for having more "common" people work in high public offices, but in practicality you're mostly putting an underqualified person into a very important public service role that needs a much higher understanding of how public policy works.