203 Minnesota residents with high incomes have signed a letter asking to pay more taxes. Yes, more. In a full page ad that appears in today's Star Tribune, the group asks that their increased contribution to the state be put towards improving educational opportunities, providing affordable health care and funding transportation needs.
I myself am willingto pay higher taxes if thetradeoff is a higher standard of living. Especially if the taxes cost me less than if I were to try and buy that higher standard of living on my own.
So much for comparing Minnesota to Ohio, when it comes to "lower taxes."
HA! HA!
»» Submitted by Big G at 12:46 PM on June 22
tbartel, comments?
»» Submitted by sally at 1:02 PM on June 22
I think there is probably some kind of general fund that these 200 people can contribute to any time they want. Have they done so already? Or are they just suggesting they'll only pay more taxes if the rest of us also pay more?
»» Submitted by chrism at 1:15 PM on June 22
If you read between the lines, this is clearly just an election year swipe @ Pawlenty and his ilk. Look @ the Growth & Justice Board of Directors...it reads like a who's who of the local Liberal Elite:
Lee Lynch
Sam & Sylvia Kaplan
Joel Kramer
Tom Bartel...sorry, made that one up.
This is less a one-page ad than it is a passive-aggressive political attack on Pawlenty which ties together his weakest points without mentioning his name...healthcare, education, tax breaks for the wealthy.
Anyone know what happened to that group "Happy to Pay for a Better Minnesota"?
I know I'm happy to pay for a better Minnesota!
»» Submitted by Reader at 1:40 PM on June 22
"State taxes for anyone making less than $45,000 would not increase and the rates would vary for everyone in between." Seems to me that this isn't a call for "tax the rich" unless the rich threshold is $45k
»» Submitted by TJ at 1:40 PM on June 22
I believe any Minneostan can simply write a check to the Department of Revenue and make it out to "General Fund." Unless there's an army somewhere led by a General Fund I think that would work.
As I said somewhere else, the Tribune owes us an explanation here. Former publisher buys ad, ad appears as news story. Probably nothing, but it looks shady.
Of course people could contribute their own money by sending a check, but that isn't going to add up compared to all of the rich Minnesotans being required to give more. You need to make their taxes higher so they become accustomed to making room for that amount of taxes each year and they don't think twice about it. $6,000 taken out at once seems much worse than spreading that over a year-long period.
»» Submitted by Tax the rich! at 2:00 PM on June 22
I moved here to get away from a city where taxes were low so you could buy lots of lawn sprinklers and build a private estate to hide from the city's high crime rate.
I was sad to see the donut (the ring surrounding the cities) gaining power.
I believe that conservatives, as a genre, generally take value out of society for their personal good. Continued conservative trends are going to sap the Minnesota system dry. Then the donut people will move somewhere else.
»» Submitted by snodgrass at 2:02 PM on June 22
Not to be a bummer but there are many folks around the world who are dying for know other reason than poverty. These snarky political plays are kind of obnoxious in lieu of the hordes of Haitians (for example) dying from AIDs, starvation, and treatable diseases like TB. How about some economic triage for christ's sake!
»» Submitted by don't they know it's christmas at 2:10 PM on June 22
These people can't think of a way to quietly and privately contribute to the "welfare" of Minnesota citizens that's more efficient than State government? Of course that wouldn't have any political payoff would it?
Since you asked, my wife, Kristin Henning and I signed the ad. The post wording is grossly inaccurate, though. We're certainly not among the richest people in Minnesota.
Can anyone tell me what the threshold is for wealthiest?
»» Submitted by Katxandew at 2:27 PM on June 22
Isn't it usually the top 1%. Since the top 1% of people controls something like *reaches into ass and pulls out statistic* 35% of the wealth.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:39 PM on June 22
Honestly, I don't even make enough to qualify for the lower limit of that, but I wouldn't mind a modest tax increase if it would go into things like education, healthcare, safety and transit. While government may not be the most efficient spender of money, you still get what you pay for in a relative sense.
I think the top 10% of the public control 90% of the wealth...at least that's what I always tell people when I go on a rant.
It sounds about right.
Anyway - I would be happy to pay more taxes if I could ensure it was going toward education and affordable housing. It's a travesty that we don't do more to better fund these things that really matter.
And then we wonder why crime and other social problems are on the rise...
This whole thing seems like a gross oversimplification. How many of us are going to throw up our hands and say, "No way that I would be willing to pay one extra cent for improved education for my kids, less crime, better public services and transportation. It's just not worth it...I'm happy with the status quo, and my kids aren't college material, anyway."
How many of us are going to throw up our hands and say, "No way that I would be willing to pay one extra cent for improved education for my kids, less crime, better public services and transportation. It's just not worth it...I'm happy with the status quo, and my kids aren't college material, anyway."
g rote, sure people don't say it in that way, but plenty of people cheer for "no new taxes" and "tax cuts" all the time, even while coming up with demands for spending tax money (roads, schools, parks, etc).
»» Submitted by Reader at 3:58 PM on June 22
oy vey
»» Submitted by Reader at 4:03 PM on June 22
Why don't we just start spending money more effeciantly. Given the fact that we are still a highly taxed state why can't we get more out of the taxes we already pay? Why is it that liberals always think throwing more money at something is always the answer?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:03 PM on June 22
Why is it conservatives think taking money away from something will make it work better? "Hey, this program is in trouble! Maybe if we underfund it, it'll shape up!"
Okay not every one I guess, just have to rephrase my reply if I can I guess.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:17 PM on June 22
Max, it's because to them underfunding is a giant leap ahead of their usual unfunded mandate.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:17 PM on June 22
Why not just get rid of the program that is in trouble and fund things like transit, education, crime prevention, and defense. You know - the things our government should actually provide. Lets drop the ever failing non-sustainable social programs.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:17 PM on June 22
Yeah. Stupid things like parks and public television. Good riddance.
"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped." - Hubert Humphrey
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:19 PM on June 22
Can anyone provide overall tax burden of Minneapolis vs. other cities that seem to be going in better directions like Denver. Not recent taxes they passed to pay for things like transit, but actual overall tax burden. If someone could show me some proof that we are getting taxed lower overall than cities they would prefer we were more like, I would be willing to consider raising taxes. Just seems to me liberal's want to raise taxes for the sake of raising taxes, even though we already are paying too much in my view.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:20 PM on June 22
"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped." - Hubert Humphrey
(TEAR) I wish everyone wanted a moral governmet.
»» Submitted by READER at 4:24 PM on June 22
Parks aren't doing me any good when I don't feel safe to walk through them. I wasn't aware public television was a basic human need.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:25 PM on June 22
Hey Libs (try to focus for a minute) this may shock and confuse you. Lower tax rates lead to economic growth. Economic growth leads to more jobs and more tax revenue. If you want more of other peoples money to spend just REDUCE taxes. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II. There's no reason it shouldn't work in a high tax state like MN.
»» Submitted by BartBrett at 4:14 PM on June 22
Simpleton: I didn't know it was the governments job to figure out morality for everyone. I just wonder if everyone's definition of morality matches your and HHH's. Hopefully they can be the one's forcing my money to pay for their moral standards. Surely that is fair. You wouldn't mind paying for what Pat Robertson consider's a moral government should be do you?
Hmm..maybe the government shouldn't be there to make sure everyone has a moral protector with my money.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:27 PM on June 22
I myself am willingto pay higher taxes
Are you trying to tell us that you have unbounded generosity for the poor or something?
It sounds to me like you have a snobby attitude and do not share most people's petty concern with taxes, especially when they chop off a huge portion of someone's income.
I suppose you'd gasp if I stated the ridiculously obvious: tax cuts, not tax hikes help people. How? People would have more money. There's an improvement. MORE MONEY! More money to spend on what they feel they should spend it on. There are many people who live from paycheck to paycheck to support their families. Why not give them a cut? Given your big-government positions in other threads though, I would not be surprised if you were to sit there scratching your head about how a tax cut could actually help someone.
»» Submitted by hess at 4:19 PM on June 22
More jobs are great...soon we will all need 2 or 3 jobs since wages have been stagnant for a long time now while inflation eats away at your buying power.
They don't call it VOODOO economics for nothing!
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:29 PM on June 22
Well, that explains why Bush I raised taxes to try and resolve the financial crisis that Reagan caused, and why the Reagan years were pretty much defined by horrific national debt -- which, come to think of it, is true of Bush II.
I love it when Republicans, who can't balance a budget and spend their time in office raiding the national coffers to thrust money into the hands of their ultrawealthy cronies, try to tell me like I'm a child that this practice is somehow good for the economy. Bush Sr. actually called this "Voodoo Economics," but he shut up as soon as he became Vice President.
If someone could show me some proof that we are getting taxed lower overall than cities they would prefer we were more like, I would be willing to consider raising taxes.
Well, I have never lived in another major city in America that I wanted to be more like, as far as publically funded services and facilities.
I HAVE been to European places that I wanted to be more like, like Norway. I do not have exact numbers, but I believe their taxes are MUCH higher.
I want to live in Minneapolis, MN and I want the state to remain above average in as many areas as possible.
»» Submitted by Reader at 4:26 PM on June 22
A little outdated, but this shows what major cities tax burdens are. I would love to see where we are currently, as our overall tax burden fell. In this list we were 23rd. Denver on the other hand who I often hear people refer to as raising taxes for mass transit, was 40th. Minneapolis was almost 2% higher. Even with some drop for Minneapolis and some presumed growth in taxes for Denver, I would assume we are fairly close now. They seem to find money to prevent crime and get transportation projects done. Maybe we should look into how they do it instead of just opening up our already heavily raided pocketbooks.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:31 PM on June 22
I'll also point out that this very idea of raising taxes on the highest earners received something like 14 votes of support when proposed in the Minnesota House in 2005. Surely if this was actually something so desperately needed it could have it at least the 20 vote threshold.
And 10 percent of people pay 90 percent of taxes. Or something close to that.
100 percent of people control 100 percent of wealth.
I control mine, you control yours, they control theirs. The only entity that has ever reached into my pocket and told me what to do with my money is the government, which seems to always say, "Give it to me." In fact, when imagine government, I imagine the new Walker coming alive and reaching it's metallic arm at me with its long, skinny metallic fingers. Ahhhhhhh!
Tax cuts would be great but its too bad the only people who get their taxes cut any appreciable amount are the people who least need the money.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:37 PM on June 22
I love the Libs who want more spending but then point to the deficits that Reagan and Bush II ran. Are you so blind you can't see overall revenue the government took in during those periods went up? It was the spending (which Libs are so fond of wanting more of) that created the deficits. Reagan's I can excuse, Bush II's I can't. The Medicare prescription program is insanely asanine. My taxes are paying to subsidize my parent's prescriptions, and they are millionaires. That makes lots of sense.
Also the Libs here who are saying raise my taxes, aren't you the same ones crying for property tax relief? If you want higher taxes why do you have a problem with high property taxes? Or is that just something you say to try and get digs in at a Republican gov?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:39 PM on June 22
And 10 percent of people pay 90 percent of taxes. Or something close to that. kwatt
I think the top 10% of the public control 90% of the wealth...at least that's what I always tell people when I go on a rant. realtor
Seems to make sense to me! If you control 90% of the wealth shouldn't you pay 90% of the taxes?
I personally don't trust anyone to do the right thing that has money, unless that right thing is to throw a 2 million dollar party in Greece for your wifes birthday.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:41 PM on June 22
Mpls Simpleton: I think you read too many Liberal talking points since I hear people complaining about talking points on here all the time. Everyone got their taxes cut. I know I'm not in the top 10% of wealthy but I recieved a decent amount. Had I paid more I would have gotten more, but then again I'd have more to start with so who is to say that extra money would have meant substantially more.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:43 PM on June 22
tubelcane, the amount the government takes in every year is always larger. And you can justify Reagan's spending? Massive military buildup? Enormous pork projects and corporate wellfare? The Star Wars program? A huge increase in nuclear weapons?
Your idea as to what is legitimate goverment spending is frankly bizarre to me. But, then, I like taking walks in parks and watching History Deetctives. Some people like war and rich people.
Reader: No sense arguing. You want a social-ist country. I don't, I want one how are founders imagined it. I had to add the - as the spam filter didn't like that word.
»» Submitted by Tublecane at 4:47 PM on June 22
There's a lot of meat in the proposal if you're willing to spend some time with it, including evidence that higher tax rates have not hurt Minnesota's economic growth and, that our income growth relative to other states has actually dropped since 1998.
In other words, when we were spending more for government, Minnesotan's average income was substantially higher than the national average. Today, after years of cuts and smaller government, we're only average.
I'm confused...so lowering taxes and running up the National Debt is a good thing? (Bush, Reagan) and raising taxes and lowering the national debt is a bad thing (Clinton)?
Please explain this? also how is our trade deficit doing these days?
These issues are really too complex to try discuss in forum like this and trying to say there is a massive difference (economically) between democrats and republicans asinine.
I'm still waiting for the Bird Flu to kill 30% of our population. Then we will have plenty of free stuff for the taking.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:45 PM on June 22
Too bad I don't read talking points. When they lowered taxes I was in the gifted small percentage that actually paid more.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:51 PM on June 22
Well, that explains why Bush I raised taxes to try and resolve the financial crisis that Reagan caused, and why the Reagan years were pretty much defined by horrific national debt -- which, come to think of it, is true of Bush II.
The economy is booming. Tax cuts have nothing to do with that? The fact that people don't feel so overburdened (well, I still feel overburdened, but you know what I'm saying).
I hate seeing government grow like a cancerous cell. Taxes do that for us.
Anyhow, msparber, do you know anything about economics? The fiscal policies of a particular president don't have a huge impact on the economy. Economics follow a cycle of expansion, plateau, recession, etc. Clinton didn't really do anything except "ride the wave". There is no such thing as a "Reagan economy" or a "Clinton economy". There isn't much a particular person can do to screw things up. Which is why I laugh at people who blame all the problems of the world on Bush II. Realistically, he's the one who was in power when the shit hit the fan.
There are things that can be done, however. For instance, this little thing known as World War II mobilized our country and pulled us out of the Great Depression. A fact lost among many people.
»» Submitted by hess at 4:43 PM on June 22
I'm done with this discussion. You win! Feel better now?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:53 PM on June 22
Tublecane, are you really suggesting that our current presidential monarchy and its relentless erosion of basic rights, its headlong rish to an unjust and illegal war, and its relentless, almost exclusive, support of corporate interests are what our Founding Fathers had in mind?
msparber: Yep the massive military build up and nuclear spending are legitimate government spending. They bankrupted our enemy and ended the Cold war without a shot fired. Perhaps you prefer ignoring things to the breaking point, but then you end up with things like what we have in Iraq now. The government should spend on things like defense, not on television entertainment programs for you. If you want to be entertained fine, but pay for your entertainment directly, don't make me pay for it. I enjoy watching lots of television programs...I'm not asking your tax dollar to pay for them!
Simpleton: We finally agree, I don't trust other people to spend money wisely. Especially the government. This is why I don't want it reaching into my wallet and paying for things that it thinks I should have to.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:50 PM on June 22
Charlieq, I can see why certain spending increases would cause our disposable incomes to decrease. The proposals talked about in the ad (healthcare, transportation and education) are all expensive for the state, but provide a much greater value to the individual citizen than if each person had to buy the equivalent amount of the services on their own.
Also the Libs here who are saying raise my taxes, aren't you the same ones crying for property tax relief?
I have never cried over high property taxes.
My mom always told me, "No use crying over high property taxes."
»» Submitted by Reader at 4:48 PM on June 22
There are things that can be done, however. For instance, this little thing known as World War II mobilized our country and pulled us out of the Great Depression. A fact lost among many people.
Bizarre. As I understand it, the New Deal had a lot to do with our rising out of the great depression, although World War II -- with its massive government war spending -- further stimulated the economy. Gish, had they only cut taxes at the same time, imagine how great things would have been!
The places on earth with the highest across-the-board standard of living (best educational standards and achievement, best access to health care, lowest per-capita crime rates, lowest per-capita poverty rates, all that stuff) are the (mostly northern European) countries that pay exorbitantly high taxes. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and so on.
Economic downturns in Japan and Germany have challenged their dominance in this area but the premise still holds true to greater or lesser extent. Frankly, all of these countries are struggling to support their relatively lavish social welfare benefits such as guaranteed health care and public pensions.
But I'd much rather be economically disadvantaged in one of those countries. The social welfare state would prop me up. On the other hand, I'd hate to be rich there. In Sweden the top income tax bracket is approximately 60%.
One way to boil the tax question down to its essence: How much of my workday should be devoted to earning money to support me and my family and our immediate needs, and how much should be devoted to supporting "the greater good" (if you indeed believe that government -- and therefore taxes -- are in place to support the greater good).
Interesting yet foundationless sociological aside: One thing that's common to these countries, aside from high taxes, is their relative degree of cultural homogeneity. Until recently, you didn't have issues with large communities of foreign-born residents who have limited abilities in the country's language and/or who are not assimilated in the primary culture. You wouldn't find much in the way of social services or programs designed to help those kinds of people. The education and health care systems are pretty one-size-fits-all, with little room for customization to accommodate other languages or "minority cultures" as was discussed in another thread. Everyone has access to services, but they're the same services for everyone. So if you're coming in from the outside (as with the Turks in Germany), you either (a) adapt really fast, tapping private resources and the community to help get you up to speed, or (b) sink.
That, to me, is interesting when juxtaposed with the U.S. social service juggernaut.
Well first I don't believe in your hysteric view of this administration. When you liken it to a Monarchy though you lose any credible position unless you are talking to conspiracy theory Libs.
Again we agree though I want the Bird Flu to kill off 30% of the population as well....I'm hoping a large % of that will be public transportation riders since they will be more exposed to it, that should thin out a large part of undesirables without affecting the tax base too much, while signifigantly reducing the countries cost burden. --I'm being sarcastic, I don't wish for one minute we get hit with the Bird Flu or that public transit riders die out.
Tublecane has obviously entered the Guiness Book for the longest sustained political discussion ever.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 5:03 PM on June 22
Matt,
Check my earlier post again. Incomes were relatively HIGHER when we spent more.
You are right that the proposed investment areas benefit individuals. They also benefit business and the overall economy. For people who are interested, there's a lot of supporting material at www.growthandjustice.org.
State investment in these areas is actually more effective than private investment in supporting economic growth. In fact, business expects the government to handle things like education and roads/transit, which it needs.
Think about it. A large, healthy, well-educated work force. A transportation system that gets people to and from work and goods to market more efficiently. Those are the kinds of investment this proposal is talking about.
Ahhhh, taxes. The Number Two cause of worn-out keyboards, right behind the Iraq (It's Going Great!) War.
I heard the president of medtech company speak recently about why his company was moving its HQ to Minneapolis. He mentioned the educated workforce and the booming medtech sector (helped by generous state support). Never once did he mention taxes. Guess it really wasn't a concern.
»» Submitted by Paygo at 4:50 PM on June 22
I give the BIG eyeroll to the "founding fathers" references.
What do you even mean by that?
The founding fathers were ok with slavery and denying rights to women, men without property and people of color. Are you ok with those things too?
It's like when people say "But this is America!". So?
»» Submitted by Reader at 5:02 PM on June 22
Oh, and maybe I should have called Bush a neo-monarchy to avoid accusations of conspiracy theory. The point remains -- he is not especially interested in the traditional checks and balances that our Founding Father's envisioned, but instead had made cocerted efforts to concentrate power into the Executive Branch.
Also the 'terrorists' are not a unified entitly like the USSR was. You can't 'outspend' a decentralised network that works on a shoestring budget. As-in-ine.
Children are a lot more likely to die from a lack of healthcare than an arab boogeyman who 'hates their freedom.' Or from street violence because there was no money left to get them an education that would allow them to make something of their life. Or from a lot of other things that are much more easily preventable but will happen anyway because all the money is being funneled into the corrupt military-industrial complex instead of preventative measures and programs.
DaveM: Great points and thanks for solidifying my belief. I would rather live in a country where if I work hard and take advantage of the opportunities available I will be rewarded signifigantly. I don't want to live in one where I can be economically disadvantaged and have the system prop me up. The opportunities are there for all, just not all see them. I have no problem with a basic social net, for people who are physical or mentally incabable of sustaining themselves. The problem is today's Lib's expand the 'Greater Good' concept to the breaking point. Also once a 'Greater Good' program is in place, whether it works or not, it doesn't go away. Then we have people saying raise taxes for things like transit, education, and public safety, when the fact is the money we are already paying should be enough to cover those.
»» Submitted by Tublecane at 5:02 PM on June 22
'Business leaders Jim Pohlad of Marquette Financial Company...'
Holy cow, that's rich! Isn't he a member of the Pohlad gang that's in the process of swindling several hundred million dollars from taxpayers for a new stadium?
Msparber: Great find on that 2002 post...it wasn't from me but that is pretty funny there was another tublecane. It is actually a reference to a Newsradio episode (before jon lovitz when it was actually funny).
Umm...I don't know where to start, this argument has went in all different directions. I got a little distracted by reading that attacking social-ism link.
Why does social-ism without the dash trigger the spam filter?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 5:11 PM on June 22
Focus again please. National debt increases when spending is greater than revenue. I'm only trying to teach you libs how to increase revenue. It's pretty simple really but remember you have to focus and not change the subject. Like I said, it worked for Kennedy! He was one of you!!
Another point: The reason that tax cuts seem to go to the "rich" is that the they are the only ones paying significant taxes. In fact, the top half of wage earners pay ~96% of all federal income taxes. It's tough to cut much from the lower half taxes since they pay so little already. Another fact, the top 10% (the really evil ones) pay ~66%. I would think you libs would appreciate the rich since they pay for all that waste fraud and abuse with their hard work and ingenuity.
»» Submitted by BartBrett at 4:47 PM on June 22
Charlieg: I totally wish we would fund those area's more fully. However I can't stand that Libs like the one's who took out this ad (and then recieved free press by the Strib) think the answer is higher taxes. WE ALREADY HAVE HIGH TAXES. They should be taking out an add saying elect people who can figure out how to reduce spending in other non-essential area's and put more spending towards these essentials. Clearly it can be done as other cities and states spend more effectively.
You know, bartbrett, even if they pay a large portion of the taxes, the percentage they pay is lower than the percentage of the total wealth/income they recieve. So sure, top 10% pays about 2/3 of the taxes, but they MAKE more than 2/3 of the money, hence the problem. The recent tax cuts has pushed the percentage they pay further away from the percentage they make, meaning it has to be absorbed elsewhere--namely the people who don't have second houses and yachts and are struggling to pay their mortgages and put kids through school.
Oh well! Let's not even get into the giant jump in earnings for the richest too, especially since they're the ones who control the corporations that decide how much the executives are compensated. Slash the contributions to employee healthcare and 401ks because we had a bad year, but by god give the CEO a giant fucking bonus for uh ... having a bad year? Wha?
oh ps, tublecane, we have high taxes in minnesota? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Have you ever lived on a coast?
msparber actually thinks the New Deal did something!
You knwo what it accomplished for pulling us out of the depression. NOTHING. Geez, pick up an economics textbook.
Read any American history textbook (except for Michael Moore's version), and it will tell you that World War II pulled us out of the Great Depression, and that the long-term effects of the Great Deal are negligible.
I recommend "The American Paradox", personally.
Come on, don't you double check your facts? Don't you use Google?
»» Submitted by hess at 5:31 PM on June 22
area's
You keep using that apostrophe. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It is really too bad schools aren't funded well enough to provide proper grammar lessons.
Why can't anti-tax people see this kind of trouble in our society? Seriously.
Also the 'terrorists' are not a unified entitly like the USSR was. You can't 'outspend' a decentralised network that works on a shoestring budget. As-in-ine.
I got it. Which is why the Dem's answer to defeating terrorism is to cut-and-run to Okinawa.
»» Submitted by hess at 5:36 PM on June 22
Also the 'terrorists' are not a unified entitly like the USSR was. You can't 'outspend' a decentralised network that works on a shoestring budget. As-in-ine.
I got it. Which is why the Dem's answer to defeating terrorism is to cut-and-run to Okinawa.
Oh christ, it's like a dysfunctional family reunion in here. Move forward, people.
»» Submitted by Reader at 5:40 PM on June 22
Modern economics is a house of cards built upon a huge expanse of probably wrong assumptions. Handwaving and hocus-pocus can make numbers say anything you want them to, which is a pretty basic thing most people should learn in a statistics course. Let's not forget that correlation does not necessarily denote causation, but essentially every modern 'economic indicator' we use to judge the 'health' or 'strength' of the economy is built preceisely on that assumption. "Well, they tracked together in the past so it must be true now too!"
I really can't stand the free-market zealots who continually harp the 'let the market solve it!' viewpoint. The "free market" is an idealised abstraction, not a real thing. Let me repeat that so no one is confused: True free markets do not exist. The closest you get is on very very small scales that have no relevance whatsoever to anything on the scale of our economy.
msparber: I'm sorry I don't have time to fucking grammer check my posts. Out of curiousity what do you do and also what is your tax base, since you claim to have paid more with the tax cuts. I find that hard to believe. Unless you pay very little in income taxes but have a lot of property or something.
tmayhem: If you don't think we have high taxes you need to open up your eyes. I wasn't saying we have the HIGHEST taxes, but that we pay much higher than average in taxes. Don't you want huge transit projects? Denver has them and they pay less in taxes than we do (from 2003 figures I have not found newer). But then again I forget sometimes that no amount of taxes seems to be enough for the ultra-Libs.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 5:34 PM on June 22
I would rather live in a country where if I work hard and take advantage of the opportunities available I will be rewarded signifigantly. I don't want to live in one where I can be economically disadvantaged and have the system prop me up.
I agree, mostly. Then again, I've never been economically disadvantaged. And I'm guessing you haven't either.
ooh ooh, I've been economically disadvantaged! After living on the mean streets of Boston I can say 'fuck y'all privledged haters,' because all it takes is a few bits of bad luck in the current system and you're out on your ass, no matter how intelligent, competent or hardworking you are. Best of all, with the shoestring support system, once you're there it's an order of magnitude harder to take advantage of those 'opportunities' than before.
Raising FEES allows conservatives to have their pork and eat it too.
Simple.
If we would all just agree to buckle down we have a great shot at becoming a Chilly Mississippi when it comes to Education.
And when you're talking about WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY how come nobody mentions the TIME & MONEY WASTED debating Gay Marriage, Politically Posturing over Iraq, Violent Video games, Pro-Stadiums, etc. etc. etc. etc.?
Meanwhile congress refuses to raise the minimum wage.
Hey Tmayhem -- I've never lived on a coast, but you do live in a place that has some damn high taxes...how much more should I pay so my hard earned money can be spent on things I don't want?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 5:45 PM on June 22
how much more should I pay so my hard earned money can be spent on things I don't want?
No man is an island, tublecane. It can't always be all about you.
»» Submitted by idea at 5:47 PM on June 22
Tublecane it is alrady been established that only the SUPER RICH pay signicant taxes so why don't you quit yer bellyaching and do your part without TALKING BACK.
NO room for TALKING BACK when we are at WAR.
After all this is America were we are welcome to LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.
Face it...either you're with us troop supporting, tax paying citizens or you support the terrorists.
Well plenty of the things you use daily are things that I pay for but don't want, but we all have to live together no matter how much selfish bastards like you don't want to, so we make compromises and take a little of each. Also I'm sure a lot of things you don't think about go into providing an environment for you to have a way to get your 'hard-earned money,' that you might not like paying for. Saying you don't want to pay for social services to keep society running is like the domestic equivalent of cutting and running. You want a modern life with modern amenities, suck it up and pay up because it wouldn't exist without half the crap you don't like paying for.
Yeah Realtor! Dropping down a couple spot's on the highes't taxed state's lis't really put's u's at the level of Missis'sippi. HAHAHAHHAHAHAH at tmayhem thinking that no matter how smart, competent, and hard working you are you can become one of the beggers on the street corners with a couple of bad breaks.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 5:47 PM on June 22
re: Realator!
(insert jpeg of eagle crying a tear of blood with the american flag waving in the background the wtc towers burning)
Your math is wrong, tmayhem, the top 10% don't make 2/3 of the money. Your beloved "progressive" tax system punishes them for working hard or being smart. In case you don't know what that means, the people that make a lot of money (have a lot of bling) pay a higher tax rate than those that don't. Perhaps you are letting your judgement get clouded by your true desire for everyone to be equally miserable. You are in the wrong country for that comrade. I'm only trying to help.
»» Submitted by BartBrett at 5:38 PM on June 22
Hey how are all those New Deal programs working out for us now? Maybe if we sacked them we could pay for the things everyone here thinks we need: education, transit, and crime prevention.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 5:53 PM on June 22
Was Realtor serious in that last post?....he's either facetious or Fascist.
Wow, way to talk down to me. Someone disagrees with you and suddenly they're remedial? I really would love to know where the punishment is when they're still raking in vast sums of cash compared to joe sixpack. Sure they don't keep every goddamned cent of it, but past a few hundred "Gs" a year (there, gotta keep up my apparant 'street thug' image) how much money do people really need? Is there really any justification for a tiny elite controlling 90% of the wealth and resources? Are they really two or three orders of magnitude smarter and harder working than the average person?
The system of course is run by such people so they set up their compensation as such, fair or not. Taxes are at least a tiny way to try to rectify their hijinks.
But they also run government now, so nevermind that. Oligarchy is kewl!
Realor: Thanks for showing us your basis in reality by saying we are going to become a cold Mississippi due to our 'low' taxes. They were 48th in overall burden in 2006, MN was 5. Yeah, we really are letting things slide. Add in our fee's and we would even be higher ;-)
»» Submitted by tublcane at 5:59 PM on June 22
I take it all back, clearly we can't afford to fund schools and transit unless we are the number 1 taxed state in the nation. Tax on!!! After all how much money do people really need anyway? I've already bought all my toys anyway so I say we tax those uber rich and I can quit working all together and just sit home and watch my huge HD tv all day. I hope 112 Eatery takes food stamps though b/c I really do enjoy eating there, maybe I'd have to get a part time job.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 6:03 PM on June 22
tmayhem, so it's alright to take other people's money? It's justifiable because they are rich and you are not?
GUESS WHAT? That money belongs to them. It's not yours. I don't care how much money someone has, to take it away from someone is completely wrong. If the rich they invested it all into cars, TVs, mansions, and other luxuries, would it be okay to break into their houses so you could have some of those things? So why is it okay to do it through taxation?
Why do you have this block around the idea that people's money should be their own?
»» Submitted by hess at 6:01 PM on June 22
the people that make a lot of money (have a lot of bling) pay a higher tax rate than those that don't.
Just to clear something up here, this is true of earned income, i.e. wages, and short term capital gains. Long term capital gains, i.e. sales of financial instruments held for longer than a year, are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, which is far lower than the marginal tax rate of the middle class. So, if a "rich" person is mostly living off "clipping coupons" they are paying a pretty low tax rate. Also, the FICA tax cuts out at $94,200. So anyone making more wage than that is paying a marginal social security tax of zero.
What I think the real issue is here is that the highly compensated people aren't really discouraged from making more money if their tax rates increase slightly. Our taxes hardly approach the confiscatory rates of the past and no serious person suggests we should go back to this. But, Minnesota has historically been a high tax, high service state. Our roads get plowed, our schools, in general, are pretty good, we have lots of libraries and lots of state colleges.
However, all those amenities were built in the past, and one might argue, our relative prosperity has come about because we had a well-educated population, and a transportation system that supported commerce--to name but two things done by government that work to the benefit of us all. Nobody is saying goverment is perfect, or even good, but one has only to look at the current debacle of trying to fund the 62-35 interchange to see that what's currently passing for goverment may be government, but it sure ain't leadership.
Tuition at the U has increased dramatically in the past few years, as a direct result of state funding cuts. If, as a business person, and most conservatives claim to be one of some sort, you don't understand what an economic engine of this state the U is, well then, I don't know what to say. An educated work force and a world class research University is the very best investment we can make.
A transportation system is essential to commerce.
A healthy work force is essential, both as workers and consumers.
People who claim to understand business should understand capital investment and its essential function in building long term profits. One has only to look at the difference between Toyota and General Motors if you don't. Or Minnesota and Mississippi.
Hey tmayhem I wasn't really disagreeing with you, I was correcting you. Anyway, you are ok in my book since you know what orders of magnitude are. However IMO you are in the wrong country. And I don't equate paying >50% of income to government to "not keeping every goddamned cent".
Please don't take offense. I'm serious when I say I am trying to help. Many are cowed by the media and public education. Lower taxes on all, including the evil rich, would result in more jobs, money and prosperity for all. I think a better approach would be the fairtax... check it out if you want to. It taxes only consumption AND pays EVERYONES taxes on necessities. Can we agree that we don't like the IRS?
»» Submitted by BartBrett at 6:26 PM on June 22
Can someone please explain to me why the states with low tax burdens tend to be shitholes?
I'm happy to pay relatively high taxes to live in Minnesnowta. I was happy to pay high taxes when I lived in New York. I suppose I could have saved some bucks by moving to a shithole, but who wants to live in a shithole?
This discussion shows some of the prevailing misconceptions about tax policy and how it interacts with the economy not the theoretical one, but the one we live in. Thanks to TBartel for responding to some of it. Here are a couple other comments I can't let stand:
BartBett sez: "Your beloved "progressive" tax system punishes them for working hard or being smart. In case you don't know what that means, the people that make a lot of money (have a lot of bling) pay a higher tax rate than those that don't."
Fact: The proposal that started all this isn't just talking about income taxes, but all state and local taxes. What matters is not the income tax rate, but the percentage of all income for all taxes. By that measure, the richest are taxed at the lowest effective rate. A progressive income tax restores some equity.
Also: "Lower taxes on all, including the evil rich, would result in more jobs, money and prosperity for all."
Fact: In a perfect world this might be the case. But the world is not perfect. The studies actually can't demonstrate this causation. But there is strong data that show higher tax states have higher economic growth rates. Again, no causation established, but it certainly undercuts the argument that high taxes are bad for the economy.
Tublecane sez: "They should be taking out an add saying elect people who can figure out how to reduce spending in other non-essential area's and put more spending towards these essentials."
Fact: Part of the proposed strategy includes measures and accountabilities for government, which has hardly proven accountable for spending with the low tax crowd in power.
And: "I wasn't saying we have the HIGHEST taxes, but that we pay much higher than average in taxes. Don't you want huge transit projects? Denver has them and they pay less in taxes than we do (from 2003 figures I have not found newer)."
Fact: Too bad you didn't look harder. The tax cutting governor responsible for Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights asked voters to override the law and approve higher taxes again. The voters were starting to see the problems lower investment was causing. Also, don't confuse Denver with the State.
On comparisons with Mississippi: "They were 48th in overall burden in 2006, MN was 5. Yeah, we really are letting things slide. Add in our fee's and we would even be higher."
Fact: Minnesota slid to 16th in the most recent year. I believe the comparison included all forms of state and local taxes, including fees.
One point that gets lost in the anti-tax hysteria... The proposal put forward by Growth and Justice doesn't raise taxes for its own sake or spread the money around indiscriminately. It's about investing in certain areas and why those specific investments are good for business, good for families, and good for individuals.
They, and the signers of the ad, are calling for a more constructive way to think about the role of government in the economy.
Last year GM spent over $5.2 billion on medical benefits for over 1.1 million workers and retirees. That works out to over $1,400 per vehicle! There is more health care than steel in the cost of each GM vehicle sold. On top of that, GM made over $6.5 billion in pension contributions last year, and the firm supports three retirees for every current worker it employs.
The other American automakers are in the same boat. In 2002, Ford spent $2.5 billion on health care benefits, and DaimlerChrysler spent $1.4 billion. In Japan and Europe, national health care plans mean that corporations pay little or nothing to maintain a healthy work force. Health care costs are thus the source of a significant competitive disadvantage for the American auto industry and manufacturers generally.
After Hess's comments about Iraq, I have realized that he's been kidding all the way through this post, brilliantly mocking conservative rhetoric by spouting the least informed, most reactionary of it while pretending to belittle the left. Had me going, too.
I thought the governor's response was the perfect way to laughify this laughable and blatantly transparent stunt. Still waiting for the explanation by the Star Tribune....
g rote, just another reason why GM and Ford ought to be working hard for national health care. It's good business for a lot of reasons. But of course you know that a lot of GM and Ford's problems would be mitigated if they built a car anyone wanted to drive. Toyota builds a lot of cars in the U.S., btw. A friend of mine summed it up once like this: GM has always hired MBAs. Toyota has always hired engineers. Or, if you prefer, GM builds the Hummer, Toyota builds Prius.
Kevin, as I said in the other thread: The article describes Joel Kramer as "former publisher of the Star Tribune and founder of think tank Growth and Justice that organized the 'Invest for Real Prosperity' fiscal strategy." How much more explaining do you want?
»» Submitted by mike s at 9:25 AM on June 23
the mustard gas was from the fucking iran war
and the 'smoking gun memo' about them cleaning up traces of chemical weapons was actually about them cleaning old storage areas to comply with the inspections
but yeah, totally had WMDs and all that. Sure thing, chief.
And yes, taking the money of the obscenely rich who are only so rich because they manipulate the system to make them as such is ok in a robin hood sense. Through their canniving they're basically stealing from millions of people down the food chain, so they deserve to pay a bit more to support the people they're screwing out of a livelihood.
CharieG: The link I found had us listed as 5 for 2006. I know I had read we slid down, but could not find the data in doing a cursory search. Also, I stated that Denver did pass additional taxes for their transit. I knew this. However just because they passed new taxes doesn't mean we should have to. My point was that OVERALL tax levels we were probably still higher or after our cutting and their spending possibly closer to even. Even if we are close to even (I'll try and get one more even in) why can't we seem to find funds for the important things??
TBartel explains why we need to spend on education and transit. I wholeheartedly agree. I just don't see why as one of the highest taxed states (16 is still pretty high...and Minneapolis and Hennepin county are even higher than the whole state) we can't find the funds from revenue that is already coming in. We could be the #1 taxed state by trillions and if we piss away all the money and don't fund transit would these Lib's still be calling for more taxes? I didn't see the focus being on accountability. If it was then higher taxes wouldn't be necessary. All the arguements here have stated why investment by the state (coming from tax dollars) are good. NONE have addressed the point that we are already highly taxed, and why we can't find the funds from that.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 10:22 AM on June 23
I'm a bit confused here... By cutting taxes, we can make up the $8.4 Trillion deficit. How does this work again? I'm thinking about getting a pay cut in order to pay off my credit card debt. Think this will work?
They cut what $700 million in spending on social programs, and those cuts went directly into paying off the debt? No. They went to tax cuts. Right! That'll help because those people who will actually benefit from the tax cuts will go right out and spend money on... I know, they will take their tax cut and lend it to the United States at a high interest rate! Thus, making double profits.
Now, for Econ 101. During hard times such as the "Great Depression" the best thing to do is increase social programs. That is, have the government give people jobs. Being employed by the government allows a segment of the population to have spending cash. That spending cash will "trickle down" to other areas such as food and clothing stores. That will spread around to other areas and thus lead out of the hard times. So, if the "New Deal" did NOT help end the depression, then your conservative selective history course was pretty good. This does not work if you give the top tier people extra spending cash because they wouldn't know what to do with the extra money. Thus, then tend to put it in the bank or lend it to the government. Why Reaganomics is Voodoo economics...
DouglasG: How many times does it have to be said to get into the thick skulls of Libs? Spending creates deficits. Your argument is completely off base. Our goverments income did not get cut by the taxes. The taxes were cut. REVENUE from the taxes was up. So lets say your income comes from selling Michael Moore dvd's. You were making 100$ but you cut your prices and your profit margin goes down, but because of this you sell so many more that your actual income goes up to $150. You made more money right? Problem is you spent more because you wanted to take out ads saying you'd like to pay more taxes. Now your credit card bills were 120$ last year, but this year they are $250. Is the deficit because you cut the price of your dvd's?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 10:41 AM on June 23
Don't forget the 18% interest you have to pay -- which you are. When the government borrows money, it has to pay interest on that money. So, even if REVENUE is up, it makes fiscal sense to put that REVENUE into paying off the debt rather than taking in less REVENUE. Only when the debt is zero does it make any kind of sense to give back extra REVENUE. Liberalness notwithstanding.
I like that he confused me and max like 4 times in his rants last night and denied being the "other" tublecane from Minneapolis.
Obviously he has some sort of dissociative disorder.
Msparber: Great find on that 2002 post...it wasn't from me but that is pretty funny there was another tublecane. It is actually a reference to a Newsradio episode (before jon lovitz when it was actually funny).
Umm...I don't know where to start, this argument has went in all different directions. I got a little distracted by reading that attacking social-ism link.
Why does social-ism without the dash trigger the spam filter?
»» Submitted by tublecane at 4:11 PM on June 22
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:04 AM on June 23
Ha - sorry if I came off as asshole in that last post or if I confused you Simpleton with someone else before. I definately am not the tublecane that posted on that other board you linked to back in 2002. I am the tublecane that has posted other places on this board. I also have posted as tublecane on the dvdtalk Other and Politics categories before. I haven't posted in any other discussion forum's using that name. I have seen it used a couple other places where I couldn't get the handle or something so other people do use it for things I guess sometimes.
Anyway DouglasG I have no issue with the fact that the extra revenue should be used to pay off the debt (i don't necessarily agree), and at the very least spending should be reduced to match revenue. However what you aren't understanding is that reducing taxes is not the same as reducing revenue. Reread the whole cutting prices but yet increasing profit analagy above. It probably is an endless debate since many factors go into it and it really can't be proven one way or another. However Lib's always seem to think it is a fact that cutting taxes reduces what the government takes in for revenue, when really that has not ever been shown to be the case.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 11:11 AM on June 23
tublecane, I agree whole heartedly the state government is putting tons of money into things they shouldn't, but, just like Washington has its earmarks, so does the state. Among the boondoggles I'd like to subject to the death penalty are about half of the MNSCU schools, the U campus in Rochester, a huge proportion of the highways funds dedicated to rural roads while most of the population is in the cities, all ethanol subsidies--in other words, most of the tax money that goes somewhere other than the cities and which is designed to get votes in places other than the cities.
What's going on really is we're paying plenty of tax, if the government were a rational entitiy. But we know it isn't. It (the legislature and governor) just wants to perpetuate itself. It's the only thing they all agree on. (btw, do we still have the largest state legislature in the country?)
Unfortunately, since they always have the votes to build four lane roads to every podunk town in this state and put a vo-tech school down for a couple dozen students, the only way the city gets its due is if there is a surplus. And since the Legislature is not really divided Republican vs. Democrat, but actually cities vs. suburbs and rural, the cities get hosed.
They are more than willing to vote unabashedly to raise our taxes (not theirs) to build a stadium. A post on how most all the metro legislators got to take cover on that by saying they voted against it would be fun.
If you got any better ideas to solve the transportation, lack of police in Minneapolis, libraries open three days a week, and skyrocketing tuition at the U, I'd like to hear them.
Apparently, the whole key is to cut back on stuff that does not directly benefit white, right wing Christians and flood money into anything that does directly benefit them, because the former programs are not working and are wasteful and the latter are working and are necessary.
TBartel: Now if I were to put out better idea's that would be far to constructive of a conversation! I prefer to get the lib blood boiling as much as their rants get me going.
Libraries - that is easy, close half of them. I grew up in a town of 13,000. Where I live in Minneapolis now there are 4 library's (with the new one downtown now open) that are closer to where I live than the library was in that town of 13,000 to where I lived. There is no need for that many, especially considering public transit could bring you to any of those 4 easily. With as much as we spent on that damn new one, why not close the other ones and keep the new one open.
Transit what I'd really like to say is go back in time and take the money we build on the LRT and build more roads, but I know that people here really hate that idea. I'm not even oposed to more light rail, how about we take whatever the stadium tax that was passed for the metrodome was and put that towards either police or transit, I mean the dome is payed off and yet we are still paying for it right? How about not have our city council/mayor waste money on lawsuits (Timewarner). How much money is our city council/mayor wasting on studying trolly cars?
I just don't understand how you can admit that government isn't a rational entity and has so much waste and yet want to throw more good money after bad. Why not put as much effort into turning the bad money into good?
I don't think the answer is simply to cut funding from outstate. Too many city Lib's have never been out there for a signifigant period of time and are completely out of touch with reality. I liken it to the religious right. They all hang around and talk 99% of the time with their own kind, so never see other realities. Too many city Lib's are just like that, and they are just as unaccepting of people not like them as the religious right is. Outstate needs money too.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 11:34 AM on June 23
I think that internet is attractive to people that talk about politics constantly because everyone else they know has stopped calling.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:59 AM on June 23
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:02 PM on June 23
TBartel: Registering wouldn't avoid the confusion, it wasn't about posting here . It was about a post made by some other person in 2002 on another forum. I'm not that worried about it I just thought it was kind of funny and also didn't want to take credit/be associated with a post by someone else.
»» Submitted by tublecane at 12:00 PM on June 23
Tuble: the reason the libraries didn't close: politics. Do you want to be the city council person in the ward that closed the library?
The solution to the government problem is a philosopher king. What we currently have are philistine kings.
tublecane: The problem with your analogy is its basic assumption. It is assumed that by lowering the price, that will automagically lead to more people buying. There is a risk involved. The number of people who wish to have such a DVD could be fixed and raising or lowering the price of it will have no effect except on revenue. A link between fixed number of individuals is much more analogous to state government taxation.
While tax burden may have some impact on where companies place their factories, offices, etc. This can be greatly offset by investing in schools, transit, etc. A company will see an educated workforce, and make that their primary factor. If they want low taxes and an uneducated workforce, they can go to those states that invest far less on these things.
The 'tax revenues are up!' argument is completely bogus. Tax revenues are ALWAYS up, even if you cut taxes, because the population grows and inflations guaruntees there's more of it. Unfortunately inflation also means the money is worth less, not to mention you now have higher costs because of the larger number of people. If your revenue doesn't increase as fast as your costs then you've got a problem. That's exactly what's happened here because the tax cuts took a lot of steam out of the revenue increases we would have seen that could have kept up with rising costs (although probably not the ridiculous war spending).
It's like getting a 2% raise when the inflation rate for a year was 5-6%. You have less real spending power than before even if you make more cash money.
The 'tax revenues are up!' argument is completely bogus. Tax revenues are ALWAYS up, even if you cut taxes, because the population grows and inflations guaruntees there's more of it. Unfortunately inflation also means the money is worth less, not to mention you now have higher costs because of the larger number of people. If your revenue doesn't increase as fast as your costs then you've got a problem. That's exactly what's happened here because the tax cuts took a lot of steam out of the revenue increases we would have seen that could have kept up with rising costs (although probably not the ridiculous war spending).
It's like getting a 2% raise when the inflation rate for a year was 5-6%. You have less real spending power than before even if you make more cash money.
Also the disproportionate spending vs. taxes paid in outstate is just like how on the national level the 'blue states,' if you will, get less in return for their taxes at the federal level than 'red states,' which actually get more money back from the feds than they pay in.
So yeah, cities tend to generate most of the wealth but continually get shafted. Story of the last 50+ years. Probably not changing anytime soon, unfortunately.
