Progressive tax moves forward
State's wealthiest are target of new tax plan. Although Republicans seem to think that taxing the rich will hurt job creation, look at what "jobs" they're thinking about: "Tom Hesse, of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said the additional tax rate would hurt recruitment of top executives." Yeah, just what this economy needs, more "top executives." I think Sen. Larry Pogemiller puts it best: "This is a fair-share plan; these same people were the beneficiaries of significant federal and state tax reductions. Now we're asking them to help us over a rough spot." Even better, the DFL members in committee hastily voted down a statewide sales tax increase from 6.5 to 7.5 percent, which is in effect a tax on the poor.
Needless to say, Gov. Pawlenty intends to veto any surtax proposal, which suggests to me (especially after his brilliant casino ideas) he's only hungering for national office. Other Republican governors are blinking in the face of fiscal reality, but not Pawlenty. Maybe he was listening when flat-tax advocate Grover Norquist said this:
Those Republican governors who raised taxes or tried to raise them will never move up in national office. Mitch Daniels will never be vice president, not now. [Alabama Gov. Bob] Riley will never be vice president, not now. [Colorado Gov. Bill] Owens - who was a presidential contender - will never be a candidate.
Well hell, I'm all for kicking the man upstairs, so I can have a fiscally solvent state again. Progressive taxation is the fairest way to raise revenue, retain quality state services, and keep the state in the black.
posted by Mark D. @ 8:07 AM |
| 
19 Comments:
The DFL managed to get thru a jobs elimination bill, now thay want to pass an economy choker.
Government programs have two costs. First the actual dollar expense, and second the opportunity cost, that is the lack of growth in tax base that would have been created but for this programs taking money from the people.
Consider, if you want to have more money provide more services and do more for the people of the state, rather than taking cash from them at a greater rate, why not encourage economic growth that makes the current rate of confiscation yield greater results?
Why is this approach undesirable? Serious question.
-Censored
Blah blah blah, Censored. Every time the minimum wage goes up or there's a tax increase we hear the exact same refrain "this will hurt business!!" yet, oddly, the sky never really seems to fall does it?
Because wealth at that level is hoarded, not freely tossed about for the benefit of the economy. Am I to believe that an increase in Carl Pohlad's taxes is going to be an "economy choker?"
Censored, the approach is undesirable because there is no persuasive empirical evidence to suggest that low tax rates can increase government revenues. And, like the article says, a lot of these wealthy folks are getting a fat break in federal taxes, so who knows? maybe they'll put *that* extra money back into the economy (rather than their savings accounts).
Used to be that the wealthy in Minnesota were more than happy -- indeed felt some sort of moral obligation -- to contribute more of their income to the general welfare. Not anymore.
Mark
You are wrong. (again)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm
Unless you have any evidence to support your economic analysis at least have the courtesy to admit you don't know.
Smartie -
Is hurt OK? Can I punch you if I don't break anything? Maybe take your lunch money, you won't starve afterall... That must make it a good idea. Survival is not proof of a contra-positive. Your response is lame.
Tom,
Yeah, in most cases wealth is actually kept in mattresses. (BTW - they outperform social security as an investment instrument.)
Bank accounts don't fill bathtubs with chilled Roosevelt dimes in vaults below banks. There is a saying "Wealth never sleeps." Seek to understand that.
-Censored.
Ohhh, a link to a Heritage "study" -- I'm impressed.
Ooh, Censored, I'm seeking to understand you, but your Kung Fu is so impressive it's blowing my mind.
Seriously, though. All I'm saying is your rhetoric is tired. You use the same line (as does the guv, the DFL budget plan is a "job-killer"? Oh, please) way too much. If you want to make an argument fine, give us some facts. If you just want to spout rhetoric, I have no problem with that either. All I'm saying is get some new lines. Your old ones are getting tired. Don't we liberals hate puppies and sunshine or something fun like that? Or is it only jobs, wealth and prosperity that we want to destroy? Come on, think EEEEEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLL!
Censored,
There is not a saying "Wealth never sleeps."
The saying you're thinking of states that "money never sleeps."
Do you understand the difference between money and wealth?
Money never sleeps becuase of international markets, differing time zones, and the dizzying speed of business.
Wealth accumulates.
Now, why the hell would you make up something so stupid? Because your rhetoric is so tired.
Smartie
Sorry if the simple things that have been true for a long time still are. I realize that supply side economics isn't fashionable.
You won't find hippies outside g8 meetings protesting it along with starbuck's and anti-globalization.
In your world it may be worse to be wearing last years ideas than something that works, but there are lots of us comfortable with the ideas that have a track record of success. Basic economics being one (and not the Marx/Engels kind, and yes I've read them, along with Smith, Keynes, Wanniski, Canto, Laffer, Stiglitz and many others. I even once had lunch with Theodore Schultz - true story, kind of funny, but I digress.)
I also truely believe that you are good intentioned. You want to make things better, and I do understand and respect that. I also think that you really lack a fundemental understanding of economics. Yours is an arguement from igonorance, and may even achieve your immediate objectives, but the long term cost is simply too much.
BTW, the heritage link is not a study, its a tutorial.
-Censored
Tom,
Arguing with you is like trying to explain housebreaking to a dog. You clearly just lack the basic understanding necessary to go anywhere with this.
You've confused finance and economics. Hope that helps!
-Censored
Censored,
I'm not trying to be a jerk. All I'm saying is you can't respond to every DFL initiative with phrases like:
"The DFL managed to get thru a jobs elimination bill, now thay want to pass an economy choker."
That's not logic, that's rhetoric. If you want to make an argument, fine, how about: "Raising the minimum wage creates an inflationary spiral which devalues currency at a faster rate than wages go up," or something like that. There are ideas there that we can grapple with and discuss.
But making arguments all the time can get boring. So, if you're going to write rhetoric, that's cool too. Rhetoric is fun and can be used to get across serious points if you're good. All I'm saying is mix it up a bit. Instead of "This is a job elimination bill," how about, "This bill will reduce the poor to eating their dead for sustenance," simple, evocative and fresh.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Have you noticed that suddenly Censored can write complete sentences and spell correctly? When did all of this start?
To Censored: A hit! A very palpable hit!
To the New Patriot crew: I apologize for highjacking your thread. Censored just seemed so uptight, I couldn't resist egging him on a little. ;-)
I'll be good now.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
People people,
Please try to refrain from personal attacks: it's not very entertaining for most of us and deeply annoying (and occasionally hurtful) for some of us. Also it brings the interesting parts of the debate to a crashing halt.
Censored: I do a lot of admitting that I don't know shit, but I do know that (as you imply) supply-side economics has largely been proven ineffective in increasing government revenues. Hell, businesses have become so adept at "hiding" and deducting from their income and profits, even if a "grow-and-spend" supply-side policy were enacted, you would see negligible revenue increases coming from a booming economy with constant income tax rates.
In this rich-get-richer era, I think it's perfectly fair and just that those who are making more give back more to the common good. Not only does it seem fair on its face, but in economics-android speak, the marginal utility of a dollar for a wealthy person is far less than it is for a working prole. So tell me what you think is wrong with that?
That rew has the filthiest mouth on the internet.
Mark,
"supply-side economics has largely been proven ineffective in increasing government revenues."
This quite simply false. You need only check revenue figures to identify it.
In the face of denial of obvious facts, there is little else to discuss.
-Censored.
Back it up or back off, Censored.
Post a Comment
<< Home