Who Pays South Carolina State Income Tax?

A Policy Council analysis of the South Carolina state income tax finds that more than 31 percent of South Carolinians paid no tax whatsoever in 2007 — the last year for which the Department of Revenue has released statistics.

The top 1 percent of state earners with reported income more than $340,000 paid 24.8 percent of all income taxes. The entire bottom 50 percent of earners paid just 2.2 percent of income taxes.

As citizens earn more they increasingly bear a larger burden of state income taxes. This result is intentional due to the state’s progressive income tax system; however, South Carolina’s tax tables have not been adjusted for inflation in years, which results in the top marginal rate of 7 percent kicking in at the relatively low level of $13,351. This 7 percent rate is effectively the highest in the Southeast since the top bracket applies at lower levels than neighboring states.

Proposals to reduce the state income tax are commonly characterized as tax breaks for the rich at the expense of ordinary South Carolinians, but these supposedly rich citizens are actually comprised of very ordinary state residents.

Two married public school teachers earning the state average salary rank in the top 25 percent of state earners. A plumber and registered nurse each earning $60,000 per year fall in the top 10 percent of state income. These citizens are the real examples of what is discussed when the state identifies its elite earners. From the South Carolina Policy Council

Sen. Greg Ryberg (R- Aiken) introduced 3 bills today that will not allow someone who fails to file a SC tax return to appear on a ballout for elected ofice in South Carolina. S. 0736, S. 0737, & S. 0738

W. GREG RYBERG
SENATOR, AIKEN COUNTY

LABOR, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: CHAIRMAN

Ryberg Decries Legislative Tax Cheats

Senator Greg Ryberg (R – Aiken) today introduced three bills to prohibit tax cheats from serving in either the South Carolina House or the South Carolina Senate, any other elected office or as a gubernatorial appointee. Senator Ryberg filed his legislation following a revelation by the South Carolina Department of Revenue that its records show no filing at all for twelve House members in one or more years between 1999 and 2007.

The Department of Revenue also reported that, “based upon income sources and income amounts documented by the Department’s existing files, eleven of the twelve House members are presumed to have a duty to file.”

The Department of Revenue further reported that for the tax years 1999-2007 three members of the House “show a combined total of $21,044 in unpaid individual income taxes.”

Senator Ryberg reacted to the report by saying that, “South Carolinians deserve and have a right to expect that their elected representatives and other public officials not only follow the law but also stand above any reproach in their financial dealings.”

Senator Ryberg further declared that, “The idea that some members of the General Assembly hold the laws of this state in so little regard that they simply ignore them when they find them inconvenient offends me and every other decent South Carolinian.”

Senator Ryberg added that, “The further idea that in this time of financial hardship, when so many South Carolinians are struggling to keep up with their bills, there are members of the General Assembly who simply decide to not pay their bills or their taxes insults me and every other decent South Carolinian.”

The three bills now head to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Ryberg called for expedited hearings on this. “I trust that every Senator takes this matter as seriously as I do, and I call upon them to move this legislation forward to be in place by the 2010 elections.”

Kind of chuckled when I read an article by Bill Davis of the Statehouse Report. He’s listed a number of conservatives in the senate as the “Juicebox Caucus”. Stating that we have the “ability to swallow Sanford’s philosophical and political Kool-Aid.” I’m curious why he didn’t include Sen. Shane Massey (R-Edgefield) somewhere on this list. Also, since Bill refers to the patriotic citizens attending the tea parties as “animals“,  how does he view the left side of the ideologue spectrum? Maybe next week? 
                
Here’s an excerpt:
                
The first four are considered the most loyal of those loyal to Sanford: Tom Davis of Beaufort, Greg Ryberg of Aiken, Chip Campsen of Charleston, and Kevin Bryant of Anderson. The next five are members of the freshman class, and received some help or support from Sanford in their bids: Mick Mulvaney of Indian Land, Paul Shoopman of Grier, Shane Martin of Spartanburg, Michael Rose of Summerville in his second stint in the Senate, and Lee Bright from Roebuck.

And the remaining four usually side with the governor, but show a more independent streak than the loyalists: David Thomas of Greenville, Danny Verdin, the head of the Ag. Committee, of Laurens, Mike Fair, also of Greenville, and Larry Grooms of Bonneau.

Full article

           

BTW, orange is my favorite flavor of Kool-Aid. oh yeah, crash, bang, boom!

Ok, Here’s a topic I need some help on. The only hunting I’ve ever done is a few quail shoots. I don’t know much about hunting, especially deer hunting. I am, however, committed to supporting legislation that supports the sport, yet maintains a healthy deer population. There is a bill that I’ve received a few dozen calls about that allows for the use of baiting while hunting for deer. Here’s an excerpt of a study given to me by the Senate Fish, Game, and Forestry Committee.
               

The use of bait for hunting deer is controversial and involves a complex set of biological, social, and ethical issues.  Biologically, population influences related to baiting can be important in the dissemination and maintenance of disease and can affect the natural movement, distribution, and behavior of deer.  Baiting can also influence survival and reproduction of deer, particularly when it moves towards supplemental feeding.  Finally, concentrations of deer at bait sites may lead to effects on other species, habitats, and ecosystems.

From a social standpoint, baiting can create conflicts between hunters due to real and perceived unnatural partitioning of the deer resource.  Legal baiting for deer can create illegal baiting situations for other species (e.g. migratory birds) that may cause conflict between local user groups.  Finally, baiting may simply pit groups against one another from a philosophical standpoint.  

Ethically, support for baiting is often split among hunters; however non-hunters and anti-hunting groups typically do not support the practice.  Controversy or lack of public support related to baiting most often involves perceptions of fair chase and this fair chase challenge weakens public support for hunting programs, as well as, wildlife conservation and  management programs that have historically been accepted by the public at large.

I’d love ya’lls input on this one. Click here to read the full study.