That was a pretty timely discussion, given that Tom Bak k has just proposed expanding the sales tax to clothing:
A key legislator say he wants to expand the state sales tax to clothing and use the revenue to reduce the budget deficit and pay off a school funding shift.
Senate tax committee chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, outlined legislation today that he said will also reduce the deficit by $257 million in the first year and repay schools more than $120 million. He said in the second year the overall sales tax rate would drop by one quarter of one percent.
I’m in favor of the proposal, but to be frank, I think it’s going to have to wait until next year. It’s hard for me to imagine how the legislature is going to have the political courage to take up a proposal like this in an election year. In addition, next year we’re going to have a very lengthy debate about balancing the budget, and I think that’s the appropriate time to be dealing with an expansion of the sales tax. At the very least, though, I’m glad we’re starting to talk about this now.
I’m glad we’re talking about it, too, and thankful for the opportunity. I do think if Bakk pursues this proposal he has to get more specific. The hue and cry that usually results when any taxes on food and clothing come up is that we must protect the necessities of “food, shelter and clothing.” Well, of course. This is MN, and the cost of winter coats and protection must not be taxed. I participated in some clothing drives this year for kids coming to school without adequate protection and was staggered by the cost of kids’ boots, coats, and genuinely warm hats and mittens. But log onto Nordstrom’s site or even Macy’s - their winter coats do not fall under the category of necessary protection. We could either establish a maximum before tax - say $50 per clothing item and $150 for a winter coat. Or there could be a tax rebate built into the income tax for people under a certain income level. We used to have such a thing, though many of you are probably too young to remember it.
The check-out at my grocery can distinguish between food and non-food items right now, including candy vs. oatmeal. Something could be designed to distinguish between a roast at $5.99/lb. and standing rib roast at up to $26. But we have to talk about it and get past the instant wall people put up whenever this is discussed. I think you’re right, it must wait till next year, but a gubernatorial candidate raising it is a very promising sign.
I stand by my previous comment:
I’m always leery of tax policy that sets out to punish someone for spending their own money on something someone else thinks they don’t really need. Who decides when the price per pound is acceptable and when it’s too much? That kind of state-run busy-bodying is not a good idea. We don’t need a State Bureau of Self-Righteous Meddling. If we’re going to tax food, then we tax food. If we’re going to tax clothing, then we tax clothing. We all share in the necessity of doing so.”
We must get back to everyone having a stake, however small, in how the government decides to collect and spend tax dollars.
Everybody does have a stake. It’s called voting.
I think GailKate’s idea is a good one. I am opposed to an overall food/clothing tax.
Well, of course you are, lojasmo. Then we might get into your pocket and we couldn’t have that. Let’s use our “voting stake” to raise the taxes on…oh, how about SOMEBODY ELSE?! Punish those rich bastards who buy expensive stuff so they won’t buy so much of it. That would have the added benefit of putting people who produce that stuff out of business. Because the state knows best when it comes to discerning what is okay and fair and what is excessive and unnecessary.
Maybe you could be the Commissioner of Hand-Slapping and Excessive Consumption Taxation. You seem to have a feel for the job. Heck, I think that the Obama administration might want to talk to you. Sounds like an economic policy fit made in heaven.
“Because the state knows best when it comes to discerning what is okay and fair and what is excessive and unnecessary”
Amen. The moment St. Paul takes it upon themselves to legislate “fairness” is the moment our public servants stop doing their jobs well.
Their job is to provide state services and come up with the revenue to do so.
I think Bakk’s idea has merit and in my eyes he is a more legit Executive candidate for proposing it.
Neutral taxation is a fantasy. All taxation encourages some behaviors and discourages others. Pretending otherwise is just plain naive.
Furthermore, I don’t know what DantheMan’s “amen-ing”: you two are opposite sides of this issue.
“Their job is to provide state services and come up with the revenue to do so.”
Again- fantasy. Neutral taxation is a belief that cannot stand up to even the barest modicum of scrutiny.
I don’t see it that way, theoko.
I think it is possible to draw up revenue sources, the the primary goal simply being to generate enough revenue to fund operations.
What I see here, and on many of these threads, is that there is an equally or even more important goal of righting perceived wrongs or spreading the wealth through tax policy.
When we go into a tax discussion talking about using it as a tool to enable “fairness”, I’m afraid we’ll find 150 different definitions of “fair” at the capitol and little meaningful work will really get done.
“I think it is possible to draw up revenue sources, the the primary goal simply being to generate enough revenue to fund operations.”
Give me an example- I do not believe you can. All “revenue generation” punishes some sort of behavior.
Let’s say we figure out that we need $50 billion to operate our state service for the coming year. Then we determine how to raise the $50 billion from our citizens. It is, after all, their government.
So we tax sales. Or we flat tax incomes. And we raise our $50 billion.
That is the right way to approach this. The wrong way to approach it is to ask “who has been wronged in our state, and how can i use taxes to right those wrongs.” Because your list of wronged people and my list of wronged people have no business being in a discussion of our we pay for our state budget.
Bakk’s idea is great. I’m glad he proposed it. It is one step to show how the Democratic candidates for governor are very different, and he is showing an ability to think rationally and independently.
Dead on Arrival.
First, you can’t tax some clothes and not others- or his 257 million dollar plan doesn’t work. By the way, which goes a long way to solve nothing. I can believe I agree with Kathy on this. I do.
The tax system is already regressive, taxing purchases directly affects those who make less money and must spend a proportion on the necessities. Rebates are a joke. Its as if people have that money in the first place and the time to wait for a 12 dollar rebate.
There are only a few ways to generate the revenue needed to run the state today, tax income, tax businesses or state run casinos. A little bit of all three may be needed in my opinion.
It’s also the only idea that anyone in the legislature, Democrat or Republican, or anyone running for governor has proposed that doesn’t involve cutting gobs and gobs of spending.
Hey, Bakk actual has a pair and is acting like Democrats should in theory act. How about that?