That’s Republican Pat Anderson’s platform, from her official campaign announcement yesterday:
Former State Auditor Pat Anderson says she would expand the state sales tax to clothing and some services in exchange for cuts in corporate and individual income taxes.
Now, Anderson is right when she says (on her website) that our current system leaves us a huge structural deficit that must be reformed. In fact, I’m also for expanding the sales tax to clothing and services, which could raise a lot of money even while lowering tax rates, and provide a more stable revenue source. Where Anderson loses me, though, is in saying that she wants to exchange that expansion for cuts in individual income taxes.
There’s a simple reason why we have a progressive income tax — it’s the only tax that can be easily structured so that the poorest among us pay less, while those who can afford it pay a larger share. The sales tax, on the other hand, is regressive — the poorest pay a larger share of their income. Expanding the sales tax doesn’t increase regressivity much, as long as food remains exempt, particularly because tax rates could be lowered. Shifting our revenue from an income tax to a sales tax, though, would shift our tax burden squarely onto those who can least afford it, such as the poor and unemployed.
Don’t think Anderson doesn’t understand this. Her campaign website clearly advocates for “a broader flatter rate structure,” read “shifting taxes from the wealthy to the poor and middle class.”
Just another example of Reganomics redistribution of wealth. The ultimate goal of Reganomics is to have a working poor and a ruling elite. As much as Republicans like to talk about redistribution of wealth, the only clear, irrefutable proof is that we have redistributed the wealth from the middle class to a few at the top.
The top 400 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom 57 million people. If that isn't a oligarchical/plutocracy of feudal proportions I don't know what is. That is the desire of Regan Republicans.
Jeff - why aren't you criticizing the Democrats who have supported doing this? Democrats have authored bills that extend the sales taxes to clothing and food.
Could you please cite an example, sir?
Lojasmo - do some basic research. Democrats have been screaming for an expanded sales tax for years. Several DFL legislators have submitted bills to expand the sales tax. The only disagreement they have with Anderson’s proposal is whether the money is used to finance tax cuts or more government spending.
Have a nice election day. I know I will!
Mr Handy
it is not my job to prove the assertions of conservative commentators.
Senor,
It has to be taken into context. Republicans want to do this as a means to reduce the "burden" on corporate and wealthy income tax, and put the burden onto the middle class. Democrats wanted to do it in conjunction with fair income tax policies.
Your first paragraph is the strawman of all strawmen. How can I even read on when you lay that out as the premise to what you are about to write.
I'm disappointed.
You, yourself, have made the argument that the wealthy pay a disapportionate share.
Wasn't it the DFL that was proud of their efforts in raising the very regressive gas tax last year?
Raising taxes to pay for things has merit. Raising taxes to cut taxes is simply asinine.
Raising taxes for ANY reason in this economy…or actually, ever again, at this point…is asinine.
Where can I send your pocket copy of the Constitution to help you understand the idea of "limited government"?
And, no, the "common good" doesn't mean gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme…..
You're right, KH. Dems love taxes no matter what, regressive, progressive or oppressive. They were instrumental in raising the gas tax and cigarette taxes in recent years. No guilt there for the poor, I guess.
And that regressive sales tax to pay for the billionaire playground in Minneapolis, I believe a majority of DFLrs voted in favor of that one as well.
What is idiotic is to complain that we don't have a system that is sufficiently progressive while presenting, supporting and passing taxes that make the system as a whole less progressive.
Is a "billionaire playground" one on which only billionaires get to play? I'd be interested to read an article about that. Please provide a link, oh intellectually honest one.
The primary beneficiary of any stadium is the team ownership and majority of teams are owned by billionaires. It therefore seems reasonable to view such a thing as a billionaire playground. If you feel "billionaire" should have been "billionaires'" in order for you to fully understand the point I apologize for my confusing omission of the possessive.
If your issue is that you would like citations for the net worth of baseball team owners or the votes in the state legislature and county board that raised the sales tax just let me know. I am often happy to help the factually challenged.
Back to Jeff's point (and Alec's), which is spot-on. There are good arguments to be made for doing a swap that lowers corporate income taxes and broadens sales taxes. This can be done in a way that doesn't make the overall tax system more regressive, since corporate income taxes already end up affecting moderate and lower income households.
The key is to look at overall effects, not simply whether one tax is "good" or "bad."
Anderson's statement attempts to bypass the progressive/regressive arguments by framing the ideal tax system this way: "We need to move away from taxes on productivity and towards taxes on consumption."
Since the wealthy consume more, maybe such an approach could still result in a tax system progressives would consider fair. But color highly suspicious of anyone who equates big bonuses and money made from speculation as "productivity."
Trading paper back and forth is not producing anything. It is a false economy. We need to return to a manufacturing base.
I call buggy whips!
Okay, not really. You present a false dichotomy. Not all manufacturing is productive and not all paper shuffling is unproductive. The better able we are to analyze and apply resources to productive areas the more productive we will be. Some of that work is done through financial mechanisms. Just like on the flip side manufacturing weapons to turn Afghan wedding parties into a fine mist adds little value to our economic pie.
Your attitude is especially surprising coming from somebody that regularly advocates for increasing the size of government. It seems odd that you would disparage those public service professional paper shufflers.
Alec - I see your point.
I would just say that "manufacturing" has to include the creation of intellectual property. Being an area that is focused on biotech and medicine, there are going to be things that we don't "manufacture" but that can profound impacts on this world and a real ability to bring wealth to the region.
Hey Jason, what is your job then exactly?
What I would like is if you would use literal words, such as "stadium" you quim.
sigh.
Oh, and lojasmo…that name-calling thing…the go-to position for the intellectually bankrupt.
Since this stadium is literally a defined area meant for playing of a game, playground, built primarily to benefit a billionaire it seems fairly literal. Your use of the term quim on the other hand is not. Funny how you seem almost incapable of posting even a single sentence without being hypocritical.
Not raising taxes when revenue is needed is not just asinine, it is irresponsible.
I have a full-sized copy of the Constitution. Can you tell me where the phrase "limited government" appears?
The "common good" also doesn't mean screwyouigotminescrewyouigotminescrewyouigotmine.