Here’s another example — Pawlenty is raising taxes on thousands of Minnesotans who work in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Desperate to raise revenues to “balance” the budget, Pawlenty decreed an end to income-tax reciprocity with Wisconsin. The Star Tribune forecasts the impact of the change:
About 13,000 Minnesota residents who work in Wisconsin will have to file income tax returns in both states next year, and roughly 8,000 of those will see a tax bump estimated to average $300 a year.
Now, I don’t have a big problem with tax increases. I’ve often advocated a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to return the state’s budget to solvency for the long term. But I also believe that tax increases should be transparent, and that they should apply to the entire population of the state. We all need to do our part to solve budget problems, not just a randomly-selected group of a few thousand unfortunate citizens.
By the way, I’d love to see readers tell me this isn’t a tax increase. Thousands of Minnesotans’ taxes will increase in order for the Governor to raise additional revenue for the State. That’s pretty much the definition of a tax increase.
Exactly what popped into my head when I read that news article. Nothing wrong with taxes — we need them to keep society running — but leaders need to discuss tax increases openly and honestly. Pawlenty seems incapable of that.
Jeff you are so full of it. Minnesota doesn’t get the money, Wisconsin does. Got a problem with this? Go bitch to your Democrat Governor in Wisconsin whose approval rating is below 35%.
Can you even read?
From the article.
“But ending the deal as of Jan. 1 also will generate an estimated $131 million for Minnesota over the next two years, a revenue stream that Gov. Tim Pawlenty is counting on to help balance the state budget.”
Furthermore, who cares who the recipient of the funds is? The tax is going to be levied upon MINNESOTANS. (not that I care, mind you, but YOU should)
Explain that to me Jack. It smells fishy but if it’s true I’m as p’o’d at Pawlenty as Jeff is. Aren’t Wisconsin’s taxes actually higher than ours? I don’t want to be locked into whatever tax rate Jim Freakin Doyle comes up with. So how does that work?
Jack,
Democrat is not an adjective. Please learn to use the English language properly. I am sure you want it to be the official one. You should at least learn the difference between a noun and an adjective.
Thanks,
Alec
What are you on about now? Democrat is both a noun and an adjective. It is not the Democratic Party it is the Democrat Party. You are actually confusing Democrat the party name and term for member of such party with the term for a type of governance “democratic”.
No, you idiot. It is the “Democratic Party”
http://www.democrats.org/
The term “democrat party” is an epithet used by scumbags and retards. Joseph McCarthy, most famously.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
If a person says “I am a Democrat”… that would be an adjective. If I’m wrong, tell me how a person identifies themself as a Democrat? “I am a person who blindly believes in failed policies” would suffice.
Democrat Governor Jim Doyle is responsible for Minnesotans paying more in income taxes, not Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty.
er … In the sentence “I am a Democrat” the word “Democrat” is a predicate “noun” (modified by the article “a”). In the sentence “I am a person who blindly believes in failed policies,” “I” is the subject, “am is the verb”, “person” is a predicate noun, “who blindly believes in failed policies” is an adjective clause (restrictive) modifying “person.”
All the grammar BS aside, Conservatives like to use “Democrat” as an adjective because it ticks off Democrats. “Democratic” is grammatically correct. Fact is, the “Democrat Party” is the “democratic” party supporting majoritarian rule, which puts it at odds with the “Republican Party,” which supports the republican form of a constitutional government of enumerated and limited powers. That distinction is far more significant that grammatical nit-picking.
“But I also believe that tax increases should be transparent, and that they should apply to the entire population of the state.”
Then I assume you favor elimination of the corporate income tax, which is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and employees in to form of lower wages, for a more transparent expansion of the sales tax to clothing and services, which would be a tax applied to the entire population of the state.
So, unbelievably, we have an agreement.
Taxes.
Transparency.
Everybody.
Fairly.
Like our President is…oh, oops.
Nope.
Bad example.
That’s true. YOU will never agree.