MPR has a new poll out showing that 72% of Minnesotans polled “support increasing income taxes on Minnesota’s top earners to pay for property tax relief and education.” This is excellent news as it comes right on the heels of the release of the State Legislature’s budget plan from conference committee. And given that the conference committee essentially let loose the House plan, the Governor will have at his desk a budget plan that does exactly what 72% of Minnesotans want: “increasing income taxes on Minnesota’s top earners to pay for property tax relief and education.”
From the same article:
Despite the governor’s veto threats, the House and Senate are preparing to send him a bill that increases income taxes on top earners to pay for property tax relief. The Senate passed a bill on Thursday that would create a new income tax rate on individuals making more than $226,000 a year and couples who make more than $400,000 a year.
The plan would use the money to provide a property tax refund to virtually every homeowner in the state and would also increase aid to local governments.
There’s no doubt that the Governor is going to veto the hell out of this thing, but this MPR poll should give the State Legislature the political capitol it needs to bargain with. What the DFL needs to focus on now is getting out the word that the legislature’s plan does exactly what the people want. After all, 100% of the revenue raised from the new upper tax bracket goes directly to property tax relief. If people know that’s what the Governor is vetoing we have a win-win situation: either the State Leg. manages to bargain through a more modest tax increase on the second run or the people of Minnesota will know that the Governor works for the wealthiest 10%, not the average Joe.
MPR has a new poll out showing that 
Loading ...
If 72% of the people supported bank robbery, would it be ok for the DFL to authorize bank robbery this session too? There is little difference between the two.
72% of the population thinks it is a good idea because 90% won’t have to pay for it. Most people supported the patriot act before it was passed but anybody being more than reactionary knew that was a bad idea too. The DFL’s motto should just be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, at least then they wouldn’t be lying about their philosophy.
Leave it to conservatives to believe that the general public is too stupid to realize what is good or bad. People support this because it is smart. It eliminates regressive taxes in favor of progressive taxes. We need to stop believing that those who benefit more from our society don’t owe more. Simply put, you get more you give more because not only can you afford it, but because the opportunity that gave you wealth deserves something back, and so do all those who worked hard so you can live the kind of life you want to and don’t receive adequate wages.
Archer,
You are are mistaken on four accounts.
The first is simple and it is that the DFL tax plan when taken as a whole makes the Minnesota system more regressive not less. This is because the property tax they say it will reduce is not paid by those with the lowest income who for the most part rent. This is if it even actually happens since the increased income tax revenue will more than likely be passed along through increased LGA which has little chance of meaning reduced property taxes. You can try to talk your way around this by saying that rents will be reduced if, a big if, property taxes go down but this is a stretch given that landlords will not be getting much if any of a reduction and do not have to pass what they do get to renters. This along with the increases in taxes and fees on things that everybody pays no matter how poor such as gas, license tabs, etc. creates a system that is worse for the poorest Minnesotans.
Second is that you say that the wealthy have benefited more from our society financially and I agree. Your mistake is to equate government with society and there is no doubt that they are not the same thing. While some of the wealthy have received more benefited from government actions then they have paid for this is not necessarily true and given the real dollar amount many of these people pay verses others I think that would be very hard to prove. People in our society are all interdependent and I think you generalize far too much by saying others working hard to provides me with the life I live as though you know I do not contribute at least equally.
Third is that you say I think the people are stupid and I don’t. Individuals are not stupid but groups often can be and are manipulated. I think the last two presidential elections and early support for the patriot act prove me right there wouldn’t you say?
Fourth and finally you infer that I am a conservative. I don’t think you have enough information to know that and I have a fairly good feeling you are wrong.
Archer,
No, it’s the liberal Democrats who think the public is stupid and they have fooled them even further by claiming if they can only stick it to those greedy rich bastards, they will give out more education spending and property tax relief. Well at least one of the state’s wealthiest has left for Florida. I guess Bill Cooper will get the last laugh on the DFL.
Kerosene,
No, renters don’t pay as much in property taxes — but they *do* pay property taxes in most cases. Landlords and management companies do pass on some of their property tax costs to their tenants.
But who *does* pay property taxes? By and large, it’s the same people who fueled the economic success of the 1990s: the middle class. It’s those same people who are stuck in equity traps in a declining housing market — property taxes are too high for them to afford, but they can’t afford to sell their home (potentially at a loss, in this market) and move further from the city to avoid hideous prices.
“When we all do better, we all do better.” Who said that? Only one of the most liberal and yet most successful politicians Minnesota has seen in recent history. Some of the rich are always willing to pay their fair share, and they should be applauded for doing so. Those who don’t…that’s capitalism. But policies that help and expand the middle class are winners for the DFL and frankly, winners for Minnesota. Regardless of what Chris’s spittle-flecked diatribes may say.
MNCR,
I acknowledge that renters paid property taxes but there is no way that they will see a decrease because of the DFLs plan. The decrease for those middle class people you speak of is dubious as well given that fact that local government entities are under no obligation to pass those reductions along.
You also don’t deal with the fact that the system as a whole will be less progressive if the DFL gets their way and that the middle class will be among those paying. This is especially true of the costs passed on to them by businesses that will have to pay higher taxes.
The DFL is deceiving the public as to the complete nature of their actions. I think they are in the end motivated, as are the republicans, by how their policies look rather than what they actually do.
4 years in a row I’ve seen double digit increases in property taxes. 4 years in a row I’ve seen double digit increases in college tuition. The DFL plan is revenue neutral and will simply shift the costs from property taxes to a slight increase on the income of the wealthiest. This will give those of us who are less able to make these increases some relief. College tuition relief has to be a priority before going into this next election.
I love how Richard and the rest of you people like to complain about property taxes. Well guess what, it’s your cities and counties who charge you property taxes. The state took the schools off property taxes several years ago. The only exception to that is if your school district passed some kind of special levy.
I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about property taxes. You voted your city council and county commissioners into office. The state did not vote those people in. It’s time for local government to be held accountable for the property tax increases. It’s not the state’s fault. LGA was cut a few years ago, but the property tax increases made up for the cuts in LGA in spades. Not only that, but the cuts have already been restored and cities have even received one time bonuses from the state to make up for past cuts.
Finally, if you think you’re actually going to see property taxes go down if the state socks it to the rich, I have some ocean front property in Hibbing I would like to sell you. The cities and counties are just going to spend even more money and your property taxes will still go up.
Our property taxes went up when state funding was slashed, so I’m afraid it is only logical to conclude that this unfortunate situation will reverse when that funding is restored.
Chris,
Your logic is twisted and totally misleading. The problem that cities and counties are facing are unfunded mandates. For example, special education. The school districts are mandated by state law to provide education to kids with special needs. The state cut funding, so the cities and counties have to make up the difference with increased property taxes and levies. Special education is enormously expensive.
Your logic sounds great on the surface. But it’s a mile wide and an inch deep. You and your arguments aren’t based on facts. Just whining and complaining. “I don’t want to pay taxes. They don’t have to pay taxes in Florida, Mississippi, or Texas.” Fine, get out. Move there already. Leave Minnesota to the people who want to invest in the quality of life and the future for the next generation. Republican greed is killing the state of Minnesota.
Tim Pawlenty and Republicans love unfunded mandates. They love to have programs they can take credit for without spending a nickel. Better yet, just borrow the money.
Credit Card Republicans 101: Borrow Borrow Borrow Spend Spend Spend.
The next generation gets the bill.
ChrisF,
Local government entities have no motivation to reduce property taxes. The high tax high service model that the DFL favors means that local officials can assume people want more spent on parks, sidewalks and everything else property taxes pay for.
The state DFL’rs have just figured out a way they can look good without accomplishing anything. They can promise to lower property taxes in order to increase every other tax on the board and then when nothing substantial if anything changes with property taxes they can blame local governments.
In 2001, state government passed a $1 billion property tax reduction by reducing school levies. In response, the school districts went back to voters to essentially re-pass the removed levy costs because it would be “free.” Many district voters responded in the affirmative, thus increasing their property taxes without addressing the underlying reason property taxes continue to increase — school district and local government spending. Similarly, this DFL redistribution of wealth is nothing more than a ponzi scheme that will be unsustainable over time because: 1) property taxes will continue to increase until spending is reined in and 2) the wealthy will be tapped out as a source of revenue to cherry-pick because they will either move out of the state or move their money out of the reach of the greedy hand of the DFL-run government.
The progressive income tax system has worked very well since 1913 and this increase recognizes ours is a demand based economy. Provide some relief for the middle class and the economy will flourish. Supply side economics never has, and never will perform nearly as well. Give the wealthy a tax break and it goes nowhere.
“Provide some relief for the middle class and the economy will flourish.”
Good. Then I expect your party will quit trying to pass increases to the sales, gas, deed, and wheelage taxes and car tab fees, all of which increase the tax burden on the middle class.
Really, Richard?
Hmmm….why is it that our revenue has increased exponentially every year since the Bush tax cuts have been enacted? April of 2007 shattered all records for federal tax receipts. Even John F. Kennedy believed in cutting taxes. While it is also important not to overtax lower income people, it is especially true not to overtax higher income people as they are job creators. You can have all the demand you want, but without creating economic growth and jobs, demand is meaningless.
P.S. Richard,
You said when you give a tax break to the wealthy it goes nowhere. What do they do with the money, put it in a coffee can and bury in the backyard? Or are they still sewing the money up in their matresses? Come on, Richard, don’t be ridiculous.
revenue has increased exponentially
Umm, no, that’s kind of impossible. There’s been relatively modest linear increase and averaged out over Bush’s entire term so far, his economy is underperforming rather badly. The fact you would use a term like “exponentially” so badly makes me believe this is just something you heard on Rush’s show.
JFK believed in cutting taxes because the 90% tax rate on the wealthy all through Eisenhower’s two term was just a bit too high.
Please explain the exact mechanism at work here for the wealthy to create jobs. And please limit this to explaining how jobs get created in the US. I’m not so interested in how the wealthy create jobs in China or India.
Chris,
Do some thinking for your self? Quoting Rush only proves you have a good memory. Try thinking, problem solving and analysis. Do it on your own without the right-wing talking heads. See what you come up with.
“Veritas” — your red-baiting is a little off, as is your history. Adam Smith endorsed a progressive income tax in the Wealth of Nations. The first true progressive income tax was enacted by William Pitt the Younger in 1798 — a good fifty years before Marx wrote.
Yes, the Communist Manifesto called for a progressive income tax. In the same section, it called for a free public education for all children, and the abolition of child labor. Is that why conservatives hate public schools so much?
Mike,
If Chris is quoting Rush and Bush let’s hear where. Otherwise my view is that you are the one replacing thought and analysis with rhetoric. You spend most of your posts attacking people and precious little on issues. Just because Bush is an idiot doesn’t mean low taxes is not sound economic policy. Higher taxes mean lower growth almost 100% of the time and growth is the only solution at this point to paying for the myriad of entitlement programs politicians, including most Liberals, have promised over the years. Those unfunded mandates are truly the ones the next generation is most worried about, or at least should be.
The truth about the complete DFL tax plan this time around is that it creates a less progressive system and will not provide any real property tax relief. People can send up smoke screens by talking about Bush, calling each other names all they want but it doesn’t change the fact that right now the DFL is lying up a storm when it comes to their tax plan.
Richard,
You are right when you say revenues could not have grown exponentially but what do you mean when you say the economy is under performing? This seems like a line with little more value than something on Rush’s show.
While the housing market is flat both unemployment and interest rates remain low and the stock market is doing well. I am afraid of the debt and the cost of the war but I wouldn’t say these things equate to an under performing economy.
Reducing taxes on the “wealthy” can create jobs in two ways. The most important is that many so called wealthy run their own small and medium sized businesses. They could reinvest money otherwise spent in taxes back into their businesses by increasing staff, paying more or by purchasing goods and services from others. Even the truly wealthy who buy yachts, mansions and other luxuries don’t sit on their money. They invest it in companies that use it to hire people and buy things that people get paid to make. While it may not meet your goal of wealth redistribution it does grow the economy and create jobs.
I also wonder what your problem with people in other countries getting jobs is? Do you not like people from other countries or do you share the right wing “America first and at all costs” attitude?
“Is that why conservatives hate public schools so much?”
I’m not a conservative (voted Klobuchar/Pawlenty) but I do believe public schools are out of control. Education Minnesota cares only about enriching its members - 54 lobbyists don’t lie.
After supporting public school only investment for 20 years I’ve changed my mind and believe that competition will lead to better outcomes at a reduced cost.
So if I am a business owner and I make a widget. It takes me 14 employees to get X number of widgets out to the stores. I get a income tax reduction of 25% and now I can hire 2 more people. So now I have a widget manufacturing operation with 16 people instead of 14. Now I can have 16 people doing the work that last week was being done by 14. I hope I’m not belabouring the point here but do you see what’s missing from this equation?
Richard,
Using your example. Option one, you could reduce the price of your widget 12.5% and sell more widgets so you can hire one extra employee with the other 12.5% to meet the increased demand. Option two, lets say you take you money saved and invest in a new machine that makes cogs to go with your widget so you don’t have to import the cog from somewhere else. Option three, spend it on a really expensive modern piece of art which.
The flaw in you thinking is that the economy is a fixed size and never changes which is obviously not the case. The more we put into taxes the less dynamic the economy becomes and the more it’s potential for growth decreases.
This is my income tax and has very little to do with the price of doing business. What I am not going to do is add any jobs until demand goes up. If demand shows a negative trend, I’m going to look to reduce staff. Demand is the key. Demand is the engine for the economy that the middle class provides. Option one is not bad except I would need to see the CBA with potential looking out at the very least, two years. Option two is automation so no matter what, no jobs are created, in fact, maybe I can reduce staff down to 3 and get the same number of parts produced. Option three is the only option which potentially could produce a job. The flaw in your thinking is that the economy is run by anything except reaction to a market demand. Drugs, prostitution, groceries. It’s all the same thing. Demand creates the market, not the other way around.
Richard,
Neither demand nor supply creates the market it is only the existance of both that do.
Your comment on option one is flawed in a couple areas. Demand is inversely related to price on many products and services. As price goes down demand can go up, to a point. How far up depends on too many factors to go over in any important way here. Your second error is in stating a two year time frame for any potential job creation. This seems less like an error and more like a number pulled out of thin air since there are many jobs that are created within days of a business seeing increased demand.
On option two you ignore the fact that some person or group of people had to design build and sell that machine as it did not do so by itself. You also seem stuck on the 19th century notion that automation and technology changes will reduce the amount of work available. If this were the case our unemployment rate would be a lot higher now than in the days of horse and buggy. Yes people loose specific jobs because of new technologies but in the long haul it does not change the labor market. This canard has been trotted out every few years by “pro-labor” types and has always proven untrue.
Option three is really the same as all the other options but is just the most simplified as it only involves two individuals. The same logic holds true for every other case even though they take many more people or groups to complete. Demand side economics is no more true than supply side. Both are just buzz words created to trick people into supporting one political view point or another.
John Maynard Keynes in his Grand Theory proposed a couple of really big ideas. One, that government should never ever run a deficit. Two, in an economic down cycle it is permissible for government to run a deficit, if that deficit is the result of targeted tax cuts. Which group was JMK thinking should be targeted? That’s right, the middle class. When the middle class has money, the middle class spends money. And I’m not talking about shoes from China or T-shirts from India, I’m talking Polaris ATV’s and Ford Explorers. Demand is related to price but it’s also related to the amount of discretionary income in my pocket. If I am not worried about next months mortgage or groceries, I will take my wife out for a burger and a beer. While we’re out, we might stop off at a furniture store for a peek and pick up a new mattress. Nowadays, no burger, no beer, and that damn mattress is going to last. This economy is tettering on a precipice and it won’t take much to knock it over into a major tailspin. Hopefully, we will be able to hold out until someone competent is resident to the White House.
Now a word about automation. There’s a story about the factory of the future. It has two employees. A man and a dog. The man’s job is to feed, water, and walk the dog. The dog’s job is to keep the man from touching anything. Amusing because it’s true. What are those new job’s that are going to be created? Are we all going to applying to each other for loans? Are we all going to be consulting each other on each other’s insurance plan? Are we all going to be flipping each other’s burgers? I really don’t see a lot of future there. How’s about we invent something again. How’s about we build something nobody else can build that will solve some terrible world problem.
Richard,
Here is an article from the Washington Post talking about how Milton Friedman debunked Keynesian Economics. I thought you might be interested since you brought it up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601779_pf.html
Incidentally, Milton Friedman (called the “most influential” economist of the 20th Century by The Economist magazine) won a Nobel Prize in Economics. He also began his life as a Keynesian Economist and supporter of high taxes.
Richard,
Since your brought up Keynesian Economics, I thought you would be interested in this Washington Post article discussing how Milton Friedman, once a Keynesian economist himself, tore apart the theory of Keynesian economics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601779_pf.html
Milton Friedman was called the most influential economist of the 20th Century by The Economist magazine. He also won a Nobel Prize in Economics.
Richard,
You once again use a story of how changes in technology will leave no jobs for anybody. This is completely false and has been proven false over centuries as technology has advanced. The world and it’s economy change constantly and people must and do adapt. Your story is just a story because you have no facts to illustrate it. I don’t have to be a subsistence farmer like my grandfather or work at the same desk for 35 years like my father because changes have cerated more opportunity. My job did not exist when they were working and the next generation will fill jobs that we can not completely predict today. I also would love to see new things invented that will continue to grow the economy. This is what can happen if we don’t try and protect old jobs and worry about creating an environment (low taxes on entrepreneurs even if it makes them rich) where new ones can be created.
Price is a very strong aspect to demand. How many people owned computers 30 years ago? How about 10? Prices dropping created a fully mature market and now you can get a new laptop that is hundreds of times more powerful than one from 10 years ago for 1/4 the price. If the beer and burger you talked about were more expensive than the furniture you very well might have gone home with a couch rather than a meal.
What are you talking about when you say the economy is on a precipice? I don’t completely disagree but I assume for a very different reason. The one issue that can kill us is debt, both governmental and individual. The combination of deficit spending and HUGE entitlement programs are creating an unstable situation that could spiral out of control unless we change them dramatically. People buying to many ATVs, SUVs and houses bigger than they need is just as bad. Purchasing these things on credit reduces money available for investment in things that are productive. Our best hope is to reduce debt and entitlement programs and do whatever we can to grow the economy. This means lower taxes, ending the war and getting people to save for their own retirement.