« THE BIG QUESTION/STAR TRIBUNE: “WHAT’S A NEWSPAPER TO DO WHEN A POLITICIAN’S WORDS AREN’T ‘FIT TO PRINT’?” | Home | MDE ON THE RADIO: SHOWTIME! »
MN GOP: TAXAPALOOZA ON STEROIDS: SENATE DEMOCRATS PROPOSE HIGHEST-IN-THE-NATION INCOME TAX BRACKET
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 30, 2007
The State Of Minnesota Has A $2.163 Billion Projected Surplus:
Star Tribune: "State financial prognosticators now expect a surplus of slightly more than $1 billion when the fiscal period ends June 30, down $25 million from the November forecast. But the 2008-09 projection got rosier by $18 million for a forecast surplus of $1.15 billion, an amount many officials say will cover little more than inflationary increases in program funding. Overall, the projected surplus totals $2.163 billion." (Patricia Lopez, "$2.1 Billion Surplus Still There – Plus All The Worries," Star Tribune, March 1, 2007)
Despite Surplus, DFL Senators Want Highest-In-The-Nation Income Tax Bracket:
Associated Press: "Rather Than Raising Income Taxes On Everyone, DFL Senators Plan To Try To Pass A Tax Bill Tomorrow That Would Give Minnesota The Highest-In-The-Nation Top Rate." ("DFL Senators Proposes Highest-In-The-Nation Income Tax Bracket," Associated Press, March 30, 2007)
Associated Press: "The Proposal To Raise Just Shy Of $1 Billion In Taxes Would Be Achieved By Adding A Fourth Tier To Minnesota's Current Three-Tier System." ("DFL Senators Proposes Highest-In-The-Nation Income Tax Bracket," Associated Press, March 30, 2007)
New Income Tax Hike Would Hit 60,000 Tax Returns. "It would kick in on income above $250,000 for joint filers and a bit more than half that for single filers. It would affect about 60,000 tax returns, meaning the number of people hit would be higher." ("DFL Senators Proposes Highest-In-The-Nation Income Tax Bracket," Associated Press, March 30, 2007)
Senator Tarryl Clark & Senate Democrats Continue To Break Pledge To Minnesota Taxpayers:
Sen. Tarryl Clark Said Surplus Doesn't "Represent Heyday" For Spending. "Incoming Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, wasn't available, but his top deputy, Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said: 'This forecast does not represent a heyday for people looking for money.'" (Conrad deFiebre, "A Surplus Of Ideas," Star Tribune, November 30, 2006)
Clark Promised DFL Senate Would Be "Prudent" With Surplus. "Extending health care coverage to uninsured children, increasing state aid to local governments to hold down property taxes and tweaking the state's education-funding formula are all high priorities, said Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud. 'But we want to be prudent. The good news is, it's not a deficit,' Clark said. 'We want everything to be sustainable so this isn't a smoke-and-mirrors session.'" (Lawrence Schumacher, "Surplus Report Spurs Debate," St. Cloud Times, November 30, 2006)
Clark Claimed Newly Elected Democrats Were "Very Centrist." "'If you look at (DFLers) who just got elected, they're very centrist. We've got a caucus that wants to make things happen for all of Minnesota,' Clark said." (Lawrence Schumacher, “New Party Leadership, Optimistic Outlook: Clark Eager To Step Into Role,” St. Cloud Times, December 6, 2006)
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 128 Comments »
128 Responses to “MN GOP: TAXAPALOOZA ON STEROIDS: SENATE DEMOCRATS PROPOSE HIGHEST-IN-THE-NATION INCOME TAX BRACKET”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:21 PM
We’re #1!
March 30th, 2007 at 6:08 PM
They are going to tax their self’s right out of office.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:18 PM
I for one couldnt care less about having a higher tax income bracket, screw rich people. Go cry more. Plus, the new bracket is to fix the large property taxes. You cant cut taxes without finding some way to cover those costs and people aren’t going to allow you to cut funding some much needed programs. Thats the problem with Republicans, crying about taxes and saying we need to cut them when the country runs on taxes and needs taxes. Everyone pays taxes so grow up.
The fact that you are pointing Clark’s quotes on how they will prudently spend the surplus has no place in this post. Clark hasnt shown to have done otherwise and in fact, I think the fact that they are raising taxes only furthers her pledge to not go on a heydey with the surplus. They are going to find sustainable solutions to funding things that need to get funded, not a quick short-term solution by blowing the surplus. So Im not sure what you wanted to accomplish by posting her quotes about the surplus….
I still personally dont think the DFL’ers should be raising taxes like crazy… At least do it a little bit at a time so it wont seem like the great taxation of 07…. Some of them will have a tough time getting re-elected….
March 30th, 2007 at 9:40 PM
They are going to tax their self’s right out of office.
It’s not like people weren’t warned about this. For months before the election people were told “vote for the DFL and watch them raise your taxes”. No one believed us. To me, people are about to get what they deserved by voting for these commies.
for one couldnt care less about having a higher tax income bracket, screw rich people.
And speaking of commies….
March 30th, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Here we go. It’s obvious the Democrats do not understand simple economics other than that once preached by John Maynard Keynes.
It has been proven over and over that higher taxes kill an economy within a few years. Though we have the lowest unemployment in the midwest, we are going the way of states like Michigan where Governor Granholm has raised taxes on business and citizens.
It has caused an exodus of businesses the latest being Comerica Bank. The last national bank Michigan had. Why did they leave? Their customer base is moving farther south and west so they are moving with them.
Though I won’t be caught in the new tax bracket, i know a few small business owners that will. They will not be expanding their business and not employing more because more money will be coming out of their pockets.
Also, where does it say in the tax code that by raising income taxes will reduce the burden on property taxes? I still don’t think school districts nor local government will stop having their hand out and asking their constituents to hand over more money every few years.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Michigan’s economy has been circling the drain for twenty years. It’s the auto industry and all those high-paying manufacturing jobs leaving. This happened with Blanchard and Engler, its happening with Granholm, its going to happen after her, and its going to happen everyplace there has that kind of an economy.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Andrew,
Under the DFL’s plan, my property taxes will go down 5% or about 75 bucks. But my income and other taxes will go up more than $1200. Only stupid people think that is a good deal.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:24 PM
And Andrew,
If you think that’s a good deal, I have some guaranteed winning lottery tickets from Nigeria I could sell you. They just showed up on my e-mail a bit ago.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:08 AM
“Here we go. It’s obvious the Democrats do not understand simple economics other than that once preached by John Maynard Keynes.”
Correct. Some one took stayed awake in his economic classes. Ask Britian circa 1970′s what happens when you “tax the rich”.
Al Frankan may get a lot of his money from Hollywood, but I think the Democratic state legislators were funded by the Sioux Falls Development Foundation.
“The business climate of South Dakota is the first big plus for new and expanding businesses. Company owners pay no corporate or personal state income tax, no business inventory tax, and very low workers compensation rates. Additionally, the MicroLOAN South Dakota Program offers loans to small businesses in amounts up to $50,000 for use as working capital or for equipment, real estate, or other project costs. The state also offers the Revolving Economic Development & Initiative Fund to provide financing for new or existing businesses, and Economic Development Finance Authority Bonds to finance up to 80 percent of new construction and 75 percent of new equipment expenditures.”
March 31st, 2007 at 5:44 AM
[...] Original post by Michael B. Brodkorb and software by Elliott Back [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 6:12 AM
Chris it is very unlikely that you will even see the $75.00 Reduction in your property tax. When Jesse had his property tax “Relief” I was living in NE Minneapolis. The only “Relief” I saw was another 10% plus increase in my proprty tax.
Andrew, property taxes are how local governments raise the money to pay for the things they approved. If the state continues to bail out the local governments then the local governments will continue to spend like drunken sailors.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:32 AM
The DFL’s new motto should be: “Vote for us and we will guarantee to tax the snot out of you.” Amen.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:16 AM
This is the culture of corruption within the Democrat party. Take from the minority and give to the majority, thereby preserving their political power. With a little help from the MSM they shouldn’t have any problem getting re-elected.
Tax freedom day in Minnesota is May 4th. These greedy SOB’s won’t be happy until it’s Dec. 31st. Half-wits like Andrew don’t believe it’s your money. They believe you took it from the government and they want it back to distribute to their voters, i.e. anyone with their hand out.
The Rino’s in our state legislature have only made matters worse and this form of cynical politics will only escalate until real conservatives start to fight back.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:56 AM
I can’t believe the number of tax whiners.
Did you all grow up believing in something for nothing?
March 31st, 2007 at 10:31 AM
If you “lost generation” Neocons don’t want to help invest in our state, then move to a red state with low taxes and see how you like it. You get what you pay for…I would never want to live in your world…middle class pays about 12.4% in taxes and the rich pay about 9.6%…gee, that’s fair and balanced!!! You don’t know the history of how this great nation developed–or you don’t care to know…the middle class is getting screwed and we’re going to do something about it…with or without you “screw everyone else–it’s all about me” types…move to Sioux Falls–and take Jason Lewis with you!!!!!!!!!!
March 31st, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Andrew- I’m the rich– and my parents made $18,000 the year that I entered college. My first job (after babysitting) was at Burger King at age 14 cleaning toilets. I used to work 25 hours a week while in high school and 50 hours a week in college. My spouse worked up to 100 hours a week in residency– a DOCTOR– GASP!!! EVIL MAN!! Let me guess Andrew- you put in your 40 hours a week and bitch about that.
You act as if I’m NOT paying my “fair share”- last year I paid $85,000 –When is is enough for you fools? When will you be happy? 36% is what we pay now- is it 40%, is it 50%, 60%–seriously WHEN??? When do you deem it’s “fair”- Andrew? This is not a socialist country, there was no income tax at all 100 years ago– look how far we’ve fallen.
I could care less what people choose to do with their jobs/careers- but PLEASE don’t bitch about it when other people make more money than you. There’s not some magic wizard out there that points his wand at you and makes you “rich”.
The DFL is absolutely nuts here. People will leave. Maybe not tomorrow or next year, but they will leave. And furthermore, other “rich people” won’t come here. Minnesotans have this ridiculous attitude that this is the greatest place on earth, yet so few have ever lived anywhere else. The general cost of living (from going out to eat to getting a shirt dry-cleaned is about 20% higher than other places I’ve lived). But- it IS the greatest place, if you love government programs, and it’s about to get even better. Free Daycare via free All-Day Kindergarten and Pre-K, Free Healthcare for everyone who wants it, Free Welfare via removing the 20 hour work requirement that was also done this week, in-state tuition for non-US citizens,..on and on….Creating a society ever-more dependent on government.
The DFL could give a shit if any business ever comes here- they’re pleased as punch and think Medtronic, Target and Best Buy are all we need. Why would we want a commercial tax base anyway? They’re all just evil corporations- so much easier to subsidize the populace. They think that Minnesota is as desirable pleace to live as fricking MANHATTAN- the ONLY place in the nation that will tax “the rich” higher. Think about that for a minute.
This is a rant- but I’m so disgusted with my homestate.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Ah yes, the DFL loves to bite the hand that feeds it.
This whole property tax relief plan the DFL has proposed is nothing but smoke and mirrors — I’ll take $1,200 out of your left pocket and put $50 of it in your right pocket, keeping $1,150 for myself. Isn’t that a great deal?
A 9% increase in government spending is plenty. Most of us working folks, you know, the ones the liberals believe are “greedy” because we want to have enough post-tax income to pay our bills, don’t have the luxury of increasing our personal spending by 9%.
By jacking up taxes on the producers of society, business and the upper income earners, the DFL ensures this state’s economy is going to go in the crapper. And once business and upper income earners and their revenue leave, the DFL will turn its lusty gaze to you and me to ensure that we pay our “fair share.”
March 31st, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Did you all grow up believing in something for nothing?
No, we grew up believing that WE earned our money, not the government. It’s MY money, not yours, not my neighbors, not the guy in the legislature. I worked those 9-10 hours a day (or more), not you.
No conservative is opposed to reasonable government, reasonable taxation.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:15 PM
And P.S. Why should I pay to offset property taxes for retiring Boomers who bought their house for $50,000 back in 1970 and it’s now worth $500,000? Sell your home!
Buying a home is a choice- if you can’t afford the property taxes don’t buy it- or sell it if you can no longer afford the taxes. The income that the market sets for performing your job is not a choice.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Brian Hanna is an idiot. Get your hand the hell out of my pocket. I WORK TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY AND THOSE WHO NEED HELP TO GET ON THEIR FEET BUT NOT KEEP SUCKING THE WELL DRY. THE MORE WE GIVE THE MORE PEOPLE TAKE AND GIVE NOTHING IN RETURN.IF YOU EARNED A MILLION YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP AT LIST 2/3 OF IT. MINNESOTA THE NEW USSR…..THANKS COMRADE HANNA FOR SHARING MY HARD EARNED MONEY.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:07 PM
MNbluestategal,
I have an idea, why don’t you move to France and live with the rest of the America-hating-Socialist bastards.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:36 PM
You earn your money, own your business, or whatever INSIDE THE ENVIRONMENT OF OUR ECONOMY.
That environment provides a wealth of benefits to you, without which you would have no job, no business, no employees.
Roads provide transportation for your goods. Schools provide educated employees. Police provide a safer environment.
TAXES PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE. All the bootstrap-pulling in the world won’t help you make it without the infrastructure for success.
What is fair? Fair is having enough infrastructure for success – enough roads, schools, and police for people to succeed.
You found waste? Great – report it. You have a better way? Great – suggest it.
But all taxes are evil? Pure bull.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Brian- Simple question- What’s your number? How much of my money do you think is fair to take? What if my spouse didn’t grow up in MN and didn’t benefit from the infrastructre here- what does he owe the state?
Come on- Tell me what’s “fair” in your book? Put a number to it– on $250,000 a year for a family of 4- how much exactly is “fair”? I sincerely want to know.
What about replacing the State Income tax with higher Sales taxes? Is that “fair”?
How did this country even survive before Income taxes were enacted? How were roads built? How did we educate the public? How did we fund policemen?
And how many state legislators make over $250,000 a year? There was a reason only property holders could vote in the past.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:22 PM
We need a stable source of taxes. The most stable source is income taxes – and the most fair.
If you make money, you get benefit from the infrastructure, so you should help support it. The more you make, the more you depend on the infrastructure – the more you benefit, the more you should pay.
You don’t drive on roads? Don’t interact with any public school graduates? Don’t need police? Don’t support our military?
Why not just buy land in Montana, fence it off, and withdraw from society? You can build your own roads, raise your own livestock, defend your own borders, and educate your own children.
Of course, you’ll drill your own well, make your own bullets, and write your own schoolbooks… on paper you make yourself with ink you extract from berries.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Thank you Comrade Hanna. Keep sticking it to the capitalist dogs.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Thank you comrade Hanna. Keep sticking it to the imperialist capitalist dogs.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Sorry about the duplicate.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Shozzy,
Hanna doesn’t have a figure because, as is apparent from his long-winded diatribes, he believes that whatever amount of money government wants, government should get, with no questions asked by those who provide the money.
He is an example of the no-questions-asked, knee-jerk liberalism that will bankrupt the producers of society, those who bankroll the state’s budget, by leaping at every demand made by the government-funded special interests that comprise the Democrat Party.
Nevertheless, I look forward to 2008, when the producers of society give the DFL a dose of reality at the polls.
March 31st, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Brian- ANSWER THE QUESTION–I assume you are an intelligent person- and it’s a simple question. How much do you think I should pay? What is fair for MY family? We already pay 36% of our household income in taxes. That’s 4 mos of work down the tubes. In the next five years- at CURRENT tax rates-not considering the state hike just proposed on top of the Washington Dems sunsetting the hugely successful Bush tax cut which produced the highest amounts of TAX RECEIPTS ever-I estimate my family will pay 45% of our income in taxes. You act as if we contribute NOTHING!! “How dare you complain you selfish ingrate- go live in Montana”– NICE!!! I’m not asking for a 10% flat tax here–What’s the number?? 50, 60, 70%— when is it enough for you?
I drive on the same roads you do– I benefit no more or no less than you do from the roads..and why is it that you use roads as an example anyway when 35% of the MN state budget is dedicated to health and human services? (That’s up from 21% just 5 years ago) That’s all welfare baby-not public schools, not roads, not the National Guard, not “infrastructure”. If it were all going to roads and military and such I might not be bitching so much. The roads in MN have changed little since 1980- 35W is still basically a 2 lane highway. The state DFL’s strategy is so transparent- shove all this spending through on the “feel good”/”buy-votes” programs and then complain to the MN taxpayer that we don’t have enough to fix the roads that have been neglected for 30 years.
I have a plan- and I could swing it for maybe $50,000– signs at the ND, SD, WI and IA borders that say “Welcome to Minnesota: CLOSED FOR BUSINESS”
Just let me know when you can anwer the question about how much of my money you want…I think I want 50% of your money to spend on increasing the pay for the National Guard- sound “fair”?
March 31st, 2007 at 4:24 PM
And Brian– how the hell did they write the Constitution without Income Taxes? I guess they had to crush berries for ink– you are a moron.
Time to drink.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Thanks Shozzy, you are spot on.Hanna thinks you drive on gold paved roads,your kids sit at gold leafed school desks, and your military shoots gold bullets. Since you pay more taxes and get more privileges for your contribution, Comrade Hanna may get jealous and have you arrested. Minnesota hats off to thee, for being the highest taxes state in the union!!!!!!!!!!!!UGH
March 31st, 2007 at 8:22 PM
You earn your money, own your business, or whatever INSIDE THE ENVIRONMENT OF OUR ECONOMY.
That is pure CRAP. “Our” economy, like it belongs to the government.
The economy works just fine – BETTER – with less government, not with more. It was created just fine without all this “environment” and would do just fine with a whole lot less of it.
That environment provides a wealth of benefits to you, without which you would have no job, no business, no employees.
Who taught you this ridiculous stuff? You should sue them for lying to you and stuffing your head with communist propaganda.
My job doesn’t depend on goverment. The fact is, my job is HINDERED in several ways by goverment. I could provide my customers MORE services, BETTER services and CHEAPER services if it weren’t for YOUR “environment” created by YOUR DFL idiots. The fact is, Comrade, it is YOUR government that is holding us back not helping us.
If your government would tax us for what is NEEDED, not for all the special crap your buddies FORCE on us we’d all do much better.
So answer the question: HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? What is your number?
March 31st, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I would also like Mr. Brian to know that our schools and roads really aren’t as great as everyone thinks they are…hate to break it to you, but the difference between minority student scores and non-minority student scores is TERRIBLE AND EMBARRASSING. That means that you can’t JUST THROW MONEY AT SOMETHING AND EXPECT IT TO GET FIXED. duh…Minneapolis district spends over 10,000 a year per pupil and their scores are just awful. And there are a whole lot of potholes out there on my roads, but I need to fork over more money for light rail.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Hey Brian,
What you said about using the infrastructure is totally false. In fact, a recent study found that the lowest-earning one-fifth of households receive $8.21 in government spending for every dollar paid in taxes. While the middle bracket of income earners received $1.30 for each dollar paid in taxes. Whereas the wealthiest households received only 41 cents for each dollar paid in taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.html
So, your argument flies again in the face of the facts. Try again, Brian.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:50 PM
My argument stands. Calling it crap, denying the reality, and quoting meaningless statistics don’t change a thing.
Your best argument seems to be calling me “Comrade”.
How much is enough? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Doh! Enough for the kind of infrastructure we all agree we need. That’s what the Legislature is all about – arguing about what we need, then voting on it.
Blind to the realities of the real environment in which you operate your business and work, you remain ignorant of the benefits you get. You just assume “this is America”, and you get all this for free.
- Roads to bring your customers and goods to your door, trucks to plow and salt it, crews to sign and mow and repair them,
- Schools to provide trained employees and educated consumers who can now use your product, teachers to teach, heat in the classrooms, books, custodians, secretaries, administration,
- Police to provide a safe environment in which your business operates, their cars, equipment, training, offices, jails, courts, courthouses, people to clean them, maintain their heating and grounds,
- Military to deal with threats in the larger world, their equipment, supplies, support forces, transportation, pay, medical care, veteran’s care
You act like all this costs nothing!
If you don’t want all this, elect officials to vote it down. But don’t flash the credit card and then cry about the bill.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Shozzy: // I think I want 50% of your money to spend on increasing the pay for the National Guard- sound “fair� //
Dedicating any one person’s taxes isn’t fair, obviously.
That said, 50% of my money isn’t enough. The NG has been put in a totally unfair situation. One rotation on an emergency basis I could see, but multiple, neverending overseas rotations? That’s total mismanagement.
We need to figure out something to do for the NG and their families to make up for this. I’m thinking no property taxes for the duration of the deployment, free college tuition and books for life after. And if the worst happens – those benefits to their survivors.
It ain’t enough, but it’d be something.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Brian– Do you think for one second that Minnesota- population 5 Million- geographically, primarily rural takes as much infrastructre as NEW YORK CITY with 8 Million People??? NY with it’s transit system, police protection, homeland security, sanitation department, on and on…the financial capital of the country, the historical gateway to the United States, the greatest city in the world– that MINNESOTA requires the same level of taxation for infrastructure as MANHATTAN?
If not, what’s your argument for a tax rate that is only second in the nation to NYC?
If our state taxes were going to infrastructure–that so richly rewards me as you claim– then why do the Crosstown and the 494/35W Cloverleaf look EXACTLY as they did in 1978 when I was in the backseat of my mom’s station wagon? Why do we have a useless lightrail system that primarily serves tourists, continues to kill and injure people and looks like Mr Roger’s trolley?
And you did (barely) answer my question- The government will take as much of my money as they think they need to fund their vote-buying programs. There is no limit.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Again Brian how much is enough? How much per student? How much for roads? And why didn’t you mention welfare for the masses as a public “need”?
Also taxes based upon income are not the most consistant, property taxes are. Income goes up and down with the economy especially with the self employed.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Here is a Democrat who finally tells the truth.
Today, at a committee hearing, Cy Thao told Steve “When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money.†This was Thao’s explanation as to how the DFL plans on paying for all the spending increases they promised their special interest friends.
At least he refers to it as “your money”.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:55 PM
And regarding your comments on the Guard Brian– do you know anybody who’s been deployed?
My brother-in-law is in the Guard he’s been in the Army for 17 years– do you want to know something crazy? Most of them like their jobs. Most of the are Republicans. They have some amazing benefits. Tim Pawlenty’s expansion of Tricare provider network (don’t think that cost much) was a great way to help the Guard and nothing is better than what Mary Pawlenty has done through her support the troops network website (A FREE program that connects volunteers with deployed families) to rake leave, host a kid’s b-day party, fix a fence, etc.
I’ve helped my sister out, so have her friends and neighbors when her husband’s deployed. It’s this crazy thing called charitable giving. Conservatives give more than liberals– that is a fact. There is a clear correlation between Minnesota’s high tax ranking and it’s low charitable giving ranking.
Boy- the way you guys think is astounding to me.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Income taxes are the best, fairest, and most stable method of taxation.
Property taxes have problems. Fluctuations in the price of real estate can drive retirees out of lifelong homes. People living in apartments pay the property taxes of the landlords for those properties, built into their rent.
We want to encourage stability, so communities can grow strong. Property taxes should remain as low and fair as possible. Force people to move around every few years and you will never have strong neighborhoods. It takes time to build those bonds.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Charitable giving is great, but charity will never take the place of effective, efficient government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:12 PM
You think that government is the greatest, most efficient way of helping people and solving problems.
Wow, just wow.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Oh- and you didn’t answer my question about MN vs NYC Infrastructure needs-
Isn’t is fascinating how you now move away from all your BS (throughout this entire thread) about “infrastructure” that supposedly creates wealth..roads, schools, police, military… Now you finally get to the truth of the matter and what you REALLY want–the social welfare programs. You guys are so transparent and phony with your centrist crap. You are liars, all of you. That’s not name calling, that’s simple fact.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:44 PM
MN vs NYC, apples and oranges. Meaningless comparisons lead to nonsensical conclusions.
You are the one whining about taxes. Taxes provide for the infrastructure that allows people have business, jobs, etc. The whole of MDE has been “Oh, woe, taxes, taxes!” for days. My point is that taxes are needed, quit your whining.
Yes, social services are part of good government. You prefer people sleeping on the streets? Old people starving or eating cat food? Children without clothes or food? People turning to crime to eat?
Social programs create an environment for people to climb out of poverty, choose to be citizens, and say no to crime.
Who should hire the poor – a gang, a criminal enterprise? Or should we try to encourage companies to do so? Have training programs and schools so they can succeed?
Everyone deserves a chance at the American dream – not just those born to stable environments.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Yup- you’re right I want children without clothes, poor kids in gangs, old people starving in the street. You got me there. I’m a cold, heartless, puppy-kicking conservative. I only care about myself. You know nothing about me or the “stability” of my background– you make a lot of assumptions about people to make yourself feel better about taking other people’s money to create YOUR version of the American dream.
$85,000 paid in taxes in one year– And you want more–I HAVE RIGHT TO “WHINE”.
Democrats want to give people every reason why they can’t succeed, Republicans want to give them every reason why they should.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:06 AM
All right I just googled Brian Hanna— do you work for the University of Minnesota?
My hubby and I are now rolling over laughing…
You work for the GOVERNMENT!!!!
Is that you?
April 1st, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Brian- Are you at work by any chance on my dime?
April 1st, 2007 at 12:08 AM
In 2005 Minnesota’s GDP was 234.5 billion dollars. The state revenues for the 2004-5 biennium were 45.9 billion dollars (that’s two years, so roughly half for 2005). That puts the tax proposal in better perspective I think. I remember when Perpich was governor that the Dakotas and Iowa were going to take all of our jobs. As of right now, we are the sixth highest taxed state. So this has been going on for a while. I think the rhetoric gets a little out of whack when you look at the size of the economy (probably now close to 250 billion dollars) and realize that even if taxes were raised 2.5 billion dollars per year (which they are not going to be) that would only be 1% of the economy. No matter which side you come down on, this is not a battle between socialism and some tax-haven free-market utopia. This is barely tinkering in the margins. Tim Pawlenty is a crusading hero to the over-taxed because he wants Minnesotans taxed less than 1% less than some Democrats do? Get real.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Is there any question that Brian Hannah’s wages are payed by you and I? This needs to stop right now.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:10 AM
You know what I find a little amazing about Brian here.
One, we are having a discussion on what state tax rates should be and Brian seems to think any time he’s losing his argument to throw the tax dollars pay for the military. Brian one little detail here you seem to be overlooking the United States government runs the military and it’s paid for with federal tax dollars. So to lump in a tax increase on state tax payers to pay for a better military to put it nice is stupid!
Two, you hail Social Security as an efficient and brilliant program. Brian you are aware that it is a pyramid scheme and will go broke if not reformed. Further more the only way it can be supported as is is by taxing people like my niece and nephew who are soon to graduate from college for the rest of their working lives at higher rates than we piad. Not to mention Brian when my mom died at 65 before she collected a single Social Security check why didn’t the Social Security administation immediately deliver a check with interest for her contributions into the system. They gave my dad a mere $250 on the thousands of dollars she contributed.
Three, Brian part of the problem isn’t that we object to wanting have highly educated students, but we’re not getting the results we are suppose to be getting already. In my city of Minneapolis we spend more than $10,000 for years on students. Yet we have high drop out rates, parents flee to other districts or work extra jobs to send their kids to private schools. Yet there are several private schools that get kids to learn that spend thousands of dollars less per student. We pay what is motor vehicle sales tax to have roads built, but have the money diverted to worthy projects like health care or per diems to state lawmakers.
Four, Brian to try to create a person here who fits what is going on at the state capital lets say we have a person who makes $17,000 a year and carefuly spends their money so they only spend $16,500 per year. This person discovers that their income is projected to go up to $19,000 but instead of increasing their savings and not spending it all decides to increase their spending to $21,000 per year. They think they can get the money easily because their boss will pay to make it $21,000. If the boss does than he will come back and decide he should have $22,000 from the boss.
Five, yes their were Republican governors in Michigan, but they worked to keep state spending and taxes down. What has gotten problems in Michigan are the current Democrat governor is increasing taxes to pay for lots of new spending and the auto industry is being killed by problems they created (job banks – people who get paid even though they aren’t making cars, health care plans that can’t be afforded in part because their is no incentives for people to control their costs) so to automatically blame the Republicans governors is wrong.
I can go on, but once Brian responds to me and the others we can keep showing just how wrong he is!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
April 1st, 2007 at 1:17 AM
I’m sure you think supporting those working on the cure for cancer, Alzheimers, and schizophrenia is something to be ashamed of, but I am proud of it.
It’s not something the “free market” will likely ever work on, without government support.
What needs to stop is the whining about paying your taxes.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Walter, MDE has been crying about taxes all week – both federal and state. My responses apply to both. Obviously the federal government pays for the military, but we need to support our NG troops here in Minnesota. The military issue is relevant.
Social Security is a great idea and a wonderful success. It is far from a pyramid scheme, and a small adjustment – such as removing the upper limit on taxable income – would make it solvent well into the end of the century, when most baby boomers would be dead. The claims of SS insolvency are greatly exaggerated.
The $10,000 per student figure bandied about is a wonderful example of ignoring the environment. A much larger percentage of Minneapolis students are ESL and take free or reduced price lunches than those in many outstate communities. Even ignoring all other factors, these students simply cost more to educate. What’s the option? Abandon public education for the urban poor? Or understand the environmental factors and try to deal with them?
Walter, your forth point is vague, so I’ll leave that for you to explain.
As for your fifth point, I haven’t said anything about Michigan – but obviously manufacturing is in trouble in America with the blind acceptance of “free trade” as a cure-all.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:33 AM
And as long as you are googling me, I’m an elected official of the DFL in Minneapolis – although I speak here only for myself, and not the party.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:04 AM
How much is enough?
What percentage of my income is enough for you? 90% 80%?
You still refuse to answer the question.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:06 AM
Brian, again property taxes are the most stable taxes a governent can use.
If you want to keep them low, and that goal is desireable, keep local spending low.
11,000,000 to move the theater, the new mega library, the Walker, the Guthrie, and the list of wasteful local spending goes on and on.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:46 AM
Well, I’m sure a conscientious public employee would advocate for cutting their pension and other generous benefits that we in the private sector provide for them, yet don’t enjoy ourselves, so we can afford to pay for all these essential programs.
Now let’s hear some real whining.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Well Brian- I’m glad you’re an elected official- double biliking the government, good for you.
But if you are indeed a webmaster for the U of M Medical School and you have spent one second of your time on a University computer typing on this blog and there is any way for me to prove that…I will call your employer.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:39 AM
I’m a very active dfler, and I think it is obvious that pretty much every dfl legislator I can think of are at low income tax brackets (most don’t have jobs or lives outside of the part-time legislative position they have), thus tax increases won’t have any affect on them (except the one lowering their property tax). They tax individuals of higher income tax brackets and assume those people have done something wrong or aren’t paying their fair share.
April 1st, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Brian,
You are so misguided, it’s not even funny. First of all, the private sector (ie. the evil prescription drug companies that you people like to demonize) has put hundreds of millions of dollars into research to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and a whole host of diseases. To say that such research wouldn’t happen if government didn’t spend money is simply false.
Second, your comment about Social Security is completely laughable. Social Security *is* a pyramid scheme. It relies on having enough people at the bottom of the pyramid paying in to the system to give the people at the top of the pyramid their benefits. I’ll tell you something else about Social Security, Brian: when the system was first created by FDR, the average life span was age 65. Guess what, 65 was also the retirement age. So the system was also designed for the government to take money from people throughout their lifetimes without having to pay most of them any benefits. Thankfully, our life spans have increased since the 30s. But the fact remains the same that Social Security is far from the best system to take care of retirees.
To further illustrate this point, let me tell you about the Municipal workers in Galveston County, Texas. In 1981, some 5,000 Municipal workers opted out of Social Security in favor of adopting a private plan to put the equivalent of their FICA withholdings into. Since 1981, the plan has achieved an annual rate of return of 6.5%. According to First Financial Benefits, Inc., which administers the plan, a worker retiring today at age 65 with 40 years of deposits on a salary of $20,000 a year would retire with $383,032 in their personal retirement account. The same worker retiring at age 65 with 40 years of deposits on a salary of $30,000 a year would retire with $573,782 in their persoanl retirement account. A worker retiring at age 65 with 40 years of deposits at $50,000 a year salary would retire with $956,303 in their personal retirement account.
Let’s translate those numbers into monthly benefits. The worker making $20,000 a year for 40 years retiring at age 65 would receive $775 in monthly Social Security benefits but would earn $2,740 a month from their personal retirement account at the average 6.5% rates. The worker making $50,000 a year for 40 years retiring at age 65 would receive $1,302 a month from Social Security, but would make $6,843 a month from their personal retirement account.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html
So you see, Brian, your Socialist utopia ends up actually screwing people. Just like the property tax scheme which would give me $75 back in property tax cuts while charging me $1,300+ a year in other taxes.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Social security is not a retirement savings program. It is a safety net to keep retirees out of poverty.
I’m glad that program is working so far (26 years). It’s very easy to show good promised returns for decades of contributions. And I encourage everyone who can afford to do so to put away money for retirement. Social security won’t do it all for you.
Social Security does much more than provide some retirement income security. It provides income and independent living for the disabled, who would otherwise be unable to work, feed their children, pay for health care.
Social security is a contract with the American people by the American people. It is a promise that no one need live in absolute poverty if they have worked.
That’s enough on Social Security. The issue came up here, and at the federal level, and your point of view was voted down. Also, it isn’t relevant to today’s discussion of taxes, either local or federal.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Brian HAnnah says we should empty our pockets to pay for
“- Roads to bring your customers and goods to your door, trucks to plow and salt it, crews to sign and mow and repair them..”
So why is the Democrat Party using our road money to build the pretty, pretty Cho-Choo train?
“- Schools to provide trained employees and educated consumers who can now use your product, teachers to teach, heat in the classrooms, books, custodians, secretaries, administration”
So why are the Democrat Party hacks that run the public schools putting 40% of the kids they were entrusted to educate out on the street without diploma’s in Mpls and SP?
Why did 69.98% of the 10th graders in Saint Paul’s Democrat schools fail the MCA II math tests last year….even though we spend $11,900 a year to make sure that didn’t happen?
“- Police to provide a safe environment in which your business operates, their cars, equipment, training, offices, jails, courts, courthouses, people to clean them, maintain their heating and grounds”
So why does the Democrat Party hate police?
“- Military to deal with threats in the larger world, their equipment, supplies, support forces, transportation, pay, medical care, veteran’s care”
So why does the Democrat Party have a party every time one of our soldiers is killed or maimed defending our country?
WHY DOES THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HATE AMERICA BRIAN?
April 1st, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Shozzy, bless your eyes, I get no pay for volunteering for the DFL. And I do my entries here on my own time, from non-University computers.
I’ve supported computers in the insurance industry, health care, property management, warehousing and order fullfillment business sectors. I’ve owned my own company as an S-corp, as an independent contractor, for five years. Currently I work at the University of Minnesota, and it’s doing the most real good for people that I have ever done.
I’m a real person, with a real job, and I have real political opinions. They just differ from yours.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:37 AM
WHY DOES SWIFTEE HATE DEMOCRATS (IN CAPS NO LESS)?
Why does anyone use the word hate? Hate might be the most overworked word in the Republican spin vocabulary, and the most inaccurate.
Most Democrats I know want a reasonable discussion on the issues. Most Republicans I hear are shouting about how Democrats hate people with heads, or something equally silly.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Brian,
Why are you a sub-chapter S Corporation? You’re not paying your fair share! You have a moral obligation to re-register as a C-Corp and pay your fair share of taxes, just like the rest of the corporations do.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:52 PM
(chuckle) When I ran an S-corp, I planned about 50% of revenue for taxes. But I never whined about it.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:41 PM
But Brian- you do hate my family….you are willing to take my money- any amount that is “Enough” even if it’s 90% of my income (you have 36% now and it’s not enough you say). You tell me to “quit whining”– but you’ll take things away from my kids and that’s not hate? So please don’t sit and throw out the BS that Republicans are about hate.
The bottom line is that you are a government employee who loves the government and believes it’s the most effective, efficient way to take care of people. You ignore the simple fact that our country was founded on individual freedom and fought a revolution because of “taxation without representation”. You think European socialism is the ideal. Without the U.S. there would be no Europe today because of Germany and they’re about to get their asses handed to them by Iran next. You take TWO WORDS out of the Constitution about the “general Welfare” of the United States and twist and cortort those words to mean free stuff for people who are deemed “worthy” while using the size and power of the government to seize assets from people you deem lucky/forunate/beneficiaries of economy, etc.. Regardless of the facts of how these people accumulated their “wealth”. You simply don’t care.
Why didn’t the DFL keep the upper bracket at $100,000 a year per couple? Why did they raise it to $250,000 per couple? Because 60,000 people don’t have the votes to make a difference and the DFL knows that.
I have a simple solution- you get a certain number of votes based on how much you pay in taxes. I paid $85,000 last year- I get 8.5 votes. That’s “fair” to me. Government workers would need some sort of adjustment to that formula.
What the Dems will do next is remove the $90,000 max income cap for Social Security taxes…rather than allow us to invest our own money and fix the problem they’ll keep throwing money on it– gee, I forgot about that when I was calculating my 45% income tax estimate for my family- that would bump it up to about 48% if my math is correct…is that ENOUGH?
April 1st, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I see your point, Shozzy, but you have to recognize everything you GET for that 48%.
Does you run a small business – does that put you in the upper tax bracket? I’m for exemptions for small business owners that actually DO create jobs in Minnesota.
On the other hand, if your parents left you $10 million and unearned income puts you in the upper bracket, I have no problem asking you to help fund a kindergarden classroom or two.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:07 PM
“Did you all grow up believing in something for nothing?”
No Brian, that’s the attitude of democrats like you. You wall want something, and so instead of getting up off your lazy butts and earning the money to do buy it yourself, you want to steal it from those of us who do work.
I work my butt off to pay for what I get, but that’s getting harder and harder because the greedy democrats think they should give it to the lazy who won’t get off their butts; or in the case of the democrat politians, line their own pockets.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Brian,
You don’t whine about taxes, but you whine plenty about how we’re not spending enough money. You’re greedy, Brian.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Chris, of course Brian is greedy. He doesn’t want to work for the stuff he gets, he wants it all for nothing which means those of us who do work have to pay for it.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:25 PM
“On the other hand, if your parents left you $10 million and unearned income puts you in the upper bracket, I have no problem asking you to help fund a kindergarden classroom or two.”
So in otherwords you think it’s ok to tax money that has already been taxed.
I have no problem funding education, but the schools have to be accountable for what they spend their money on. My local high school has a coffee shop in it for the kids. Why did my tax dollars pay for that crap? I’ve seen schools buy $800 cameras for the photography classes and the kids just trash them within a month. Why are they buying such expensive cameras? Now days, the kids are taking stupid feel good classes, and important subjects like history, mathematics, reading, etc are falling by the wayside because they have to teach the feel good garbage. A lot of schools don’t have Phy Ed classes any more, and it it showing because there is an increasing number of under 18 blimps walking around.
My daughter is a teacher, she’s frustrated because the kids don’t care and the parents don’t care. It’s hard to teach the kids anything if both the kids and the parents don’t care. And guess what, she teachs in a district that is mostly liberal democrats. But hey, why bother learning anything with the liberal politicians will hand them everything on a platter.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Brian:
You’re so amazing here. So lets try to go over a couple of points. You think Social Secuirty is a fair and productive program. You might want to get facts straight:
Social Security was created when FDR was president. Without doing any reasearch the first check was paid out sometime in the 1930′s. Which means that it has been in existence for something like seventy years which is slightly more than 26 years like you claimed.
Unless of course you were tought math in one of those schools that you think are achieving great things in education. But that will explain your inability to think of the concept when you have a $2 billion surplus to cut state taxes to help the state economy instead of $4 billion in tax increases to kill the state economy.
You claim it’s only fair for example if somebody got ten million dollars which they didn’t earn to pay taxes. Well Brian why is it fair than the government say to my mom let alone millions of other people put away thousands of dollars for your retirement the way we think it should be saved and if you should die early you don’t get the money back. If my mom had put her social secuirty money in a 1% savings account we would’ve been able to get the money back! If my mom would’ve bought US savings bonds we would’ve been able to get the money back! If my mom had put the money in stock plans (and she wouldn’t have done anything radical) we would’ve gotten the money back. Keep in mind Brian all I think is fair is to get her contributions back. No interest! None of her employer contributions!
WHY ISN’T THAT FAIR BRIAN! YOU SAY YOU’RE A FAIR MINDED PERSON SO WHY WON’T YOU SUPPORT THAT POSITION!!!!
Oh as for the debate being over on Social Security. Someday Social Security will be reformed because the pyramind would bust. It will take place. The question is when and what will be done. The attitude of Democrats not to touch it or do serious reform hurt the people they say the champion.
Brian as for being fully funded and successful you must have missed that sixty minutes segment where a government accountent is going around and telling us how many trillions of dollars these programs are.
As for your argument about these are the disadvantaged kids so they automatically cost more why do parents in New York City and other places beg to get a scholorship that is thousands of dollars less the money spent by the public school district. According to your logic the private school would do worse of a job educating the kid because they will spend less money on that kid. A recent piece in the wall street journal commented about how a principal in charter school in Harlem has many more applicants than the school has spots. In her school she will get less funding from the state of New York than the other public schools in Harlem will get. Yet the parents want their kids in her school! Cheaper is worse according to you so explain that!
If by any chance your company gets a cure for the disasease mentioned it will offer a chance to make billions of dollars in profits unless the drug laws are rewritten. Merck and every other drug company I’m sure is doing similar research.
Since you’re an elected official in the city of Minneapolis will you be willing to explain the number of dramatic cuts in the police force compared with what we had with Belton. My property tax bill for Minneapolis is over $1,300 alone. It isn’t because we have a shortage of tax dollars. Of course eleven million dollars pays for a minimum of 110 police officers for one year. I would’ve rather have those officers than that movie theater moved.
And I think I’m having a serious discussion of the issues along with some other people here Brian. Just for the record Brian I am a public employee and I believe that the only way to have funds for the public sector is to create a healthy private sector economy. The bigger the better. This large tax increase won’t help public employees in the long run because it will kill jobs and the growth of the income to pay for programs that you think are worthy!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
April 1st, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Honeydog,
You’re absolutely right. Brian is like the Sheriff of Nottingham who hoarded all of the people’s money until Robin Hood came and took it away from the Sheriff (ie. the government) and gave it back to the people.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Walter- THANK YOU! My mom was a sub teacher and social worker for 30 years- she also was a public employee. She became a Republican AFTER working for the public school system and seeing all the problems.
“On the other hand, if your parents left you $10 million and unearned income puts you in the upper bracket, I have no problem asking you to help fund a kindergarden classroom or two.â€
This demonstrates your complete lack of understanding about income taxes. Inherited wealth is NOT taxable INCOME. Estate (Death) taxes may have been paid (one-time) on any non-sheltered income when that money was passed down. And income taxes are paid on dividends paid out and there’s ways to shelter that too. You can’t shelter your W2 income, except with your mortgage deduction- which the Dems will also be taking away soon enough.
The idea that there’s all these people sitting around with inherited money is simply false. (Oh, except for the majority of the fools who signed that ad in the Star Trib last year begging to pay higher taxes– most of those names had inherited money or were retirees no longer paying income tax.)NOBODY in my family has inherited a dime. Not one thin dime.
I will send my kids to private school because the public schools are no longer competitive. I invest my money in private accounts and will not see a dime from Social Security. When Universal Healthcare is instituted, I will use those physicians and hospitals that will inevitably move to providing “private” healthcare. If I was offered private police protection for my neighborhood, I’d pay for that too. Private industry will always outperform the government.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:12 PM
On the other hand, if your parents left you $10 million and unearned income puts you in the upper bracket, I have no problem asking you to help fund a kindergarden classroom or two.
Unearned? Are you joking with that statement?
How about the hard work those parents put in to earn that money? Or perhaps the blood, sweat and tears, the years of it, to create a successful family farm or business worth that $10m?
How dare you suggest that the government (thru the emotional farce of “kindergarden classrooms”) should get half or MORE of their hard work just because you say so.
That, Mr. Hanna, IS greedy.
So – answer the question! How much of my money do you want? 90%? 80%? How much?
STOP RUNNING AND ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FOR A CHANGE you chicken.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Brian Hannah belched:
“….you have to recognize everything you GET for that 48%.”
Whew…that’s right! I forgot that beneath the crumbling public schools lies the ambergris of the teachers union wealth and power..which of course flows to the Democrat Party in it’s due.
While we unenlightened masses focus on the potholes and overcrowded freeways the Democrat Party pours our money into the busses on which we can sharpen out personal defense skillz and into the Choo-Choo trains which carry boatloads of cash into the coffers of transportation and public service unions..which of course then flows to the Democrat Party in it’s due.
We’re GETTIN’ it all right..we just have to bend over a little farther and learn to enjoy IT…right Brian? Right?
April 1st, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Why does the Democrat Party hate the American way of life?
April 1st, 2007 at 7:42 PM
“When you guys win, you get to keep your money.
When we win, we take your money”
Cy Thao (Democrat, Saint Paul)
It’s good to know that there is at least ONE member who is not afraid to put the Democrat Party’s cards on the table.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:42 PM
What a nasty little man.
Curious as to whether Mr. Hanna is guilty of being a socialist on your dime? [Comment redacted]
knock, knock, Neo…
April 1st, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Walter, I think you missed a few points. The 26 years referred to the program Chris was talking about, not SS. And SS is not a retirement fund. That’s what IRAs are for.
I am not an elected official in Minneapolis, I am part of the DFL party structure in Minneapolis – which is an unpaid position. I had nothing to do with the police firings… in fact, I was appalled.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Brian,
You missed the point again about Social Security. While Social Security is a safety net by design, the problem lies in the fact that most people cannot afford to put money into an IRA when they also have to pay other high taxes, a mortgage and the costs of raising a family. And even if they wanted to save more, the government has passed silly rules limiting how much can be put into retirement funds without ridiculous tax consequences. That’s why Social Security needs to be revamped so that the next generation isn’t screwed by the government out of a decent retirement.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Dear Brian:
Check your history with FDR. It was designed to have a source of income to supplement your retirement or else why would the government have created it in the first place. So it’s at least suppose to be a partial retirment fund. The problems though:
* With having to create a revenue base to pay the higher preiums the taxes have gone up so people can’t do other savings. Furthermore for a lower wage worker the 7.65 the employer is paying the government instead of the worker has helped create the lower living standards people complain about today.
* If it’s not a retirement fund like you claim than shouldn’t I be able to put the money that the government is stealing from me to improve my retirement life.
* Okay so you’re upset with the cutting of the police officers. Yet your party which is the large majority in Minneapolis doesn’t want to throw out the people who did it like the Mayor or the city council.
* Isn’t your party the same group that has 7-0 control of the minneapolis school board and passed every levy they want to improve the schools. So why does Minneapolis have such lousy schools that even the black parents are openly trying to get their kids out of Minneapolis schools. The problem as I and others have been trying to get across with all these comments is “LETS SPEND THE MONEY BETTER FIRST!!!!” If the money for schools and health care were better spent the results might improve without having to spend more money let alone increasing taxes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Guys, you’re wasting your breath. Brian Hanna is of the the most ignorant, boneheaded and irrational breed of communists.
Honestly, he knows absolutely nothing. You’re talking to a brick wall… the difference, of course, is that brick walls are capable of performing a function… Brian and his ilk are not.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 AM
I think we are wasting our time here with Brian. He doesn’t get it and never will get it. He wants your money to fund his utopia and says its for the infrastructure. It is the old tired, over used Lib bait and switch.
Here’s how it works (As most here know all too well):
You give me money that I say will go to roads, schools, poor, police and infrastructure. I take the money and blow it on light rail, Education Minnesota head count, ineffective social programs and government bureaucracy. Then I come back, as Brian is doing, and say “Look. You didn’t pay enough! The roads are still bad, the kids are dumb, people still need, we have no police and businesses are leaving!â€
Then we are all supposed to mindlessly cough up more money and assume it will not get pissed away again. What is the old saying “Only an idiot repeats the same action expecting a different result�
Shozzy has given $85K in taxes. That is a LOT of money that should do a lot of good work for our “infrastructure†as Brian calls it. But government eats about $60K of that in bureaucracy alone and misuses most of the rest.
Is the DFL demanding less bureaucracy? Better use and accountability of funded programs? Prioritized budgeting? Telling Ed. Minn. to produce results or stick their Million$$ in contributions where the sun don’t shine? No, the DFL answer is that the Shozzys aren’t paying enough even thought all statistics, some quoted on this thread, show that the Shozzys of the state fund most of everything!
Obviously, Brian, it is you who believe that you should get something for nothing or something from everyone else.
Bluegal, are you paying attention?
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Brian, it is time to face the facts laid out through out these post- you are wrong!
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Yeah, Brian. Admit it, Bush is running this country flawlessly!
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Hey otter,
What does President Bush have to do with Minnesota Democrats proposing the highest tax bracket in the nation? Because I don’t think that has anything to do with the President.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Brian said `the rich SHOULD pay more’
A complete dodge, as usual. The rich DO pay more — in sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes, even as currently structured. You are arguing the rich need to pay more on top of more with an even higher top rate.
Brian, enlighten us — when was the last time a state raised it’s top rate and saw it’s economy improve? When was the last time the Feds CUT the top rate and saw things NOT improve?
Never and never.
Brian, you should no better. If you have experience with S-corps you know rich poeple can move easily, can decide not to work and invest if the cost of success is too high.
A new top tax rate in an economy that’s rolling, low unemployemnt, low rates, and a SURPLUS no less.
And Hanna defends it. You just can’t make it up.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Whew!
Thanks for the smoke otter, they really had me pinned down there for awhile…can you call in an evac chopper for me?
I’m ready for dustoff.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 PM
I don’t know what Bush has to do with MN Democrats. It looked like you guys were having fun, so I just wanted to pile on also. Republicans are awesome!
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Is otter on the wrong thread or was that just a mindless hit and run.
Lib-think lesson No. 347: Minnesota DFL mindlessly rapes taxpayers because…Bush isn’t flawless.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Rape? A billion dollar increase on an economy of 250 billion?
What happens at the federal level impacts the state level. Wasn’t that part of the whole conservative thing about devolving power back to the states? If the Feds aren’t going to fund No Child Left Behind, then its up to the states to do that. If the state government is going to expect more out of municipalities and counties, then they will step up. Like it our not, MN has a history of supporting a more expansive role for government, and higher taxes. The states that have no state income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Tennessee. If any of you would like to move to these income tax-free nirvanas and you are currently living in the metro area, I can help you pack your U-Haul this weekend (actually Sunday is a Holiday, so I won’t be available the whole day).
And if you think about it, you can blame Bush for the MN Democrats (if you believe in chain reactions). Five years ago Cheney called Pawlenty while he (TPaw) was at the dentist and told him that he (TPaw) would be running for Governor, not Senator. Pawlenty gets elected. Bush mismanages war, government, etc. Minnesotans get mad, cannot vote for Hatch, but vote for almost every other Democrat, giving DFL control of legislature. Emboldened, DFL starts legislating. The rest has been lampooned on this site.
April 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Otter-
Thanks for your offer to help us move–luckily I’m rich, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Funny you should mention moving, after being really down and mad (obviously) about how crazy my beloved homestate is…I was just online today looking at Sioux Falls real estate- we have family there too, it’s a nice town. I mean they’re not as “enlightened and cultured” as the genuises here and GASP there’s no Guthrie theatre, but they have a ton of new development going on. And I’ve been to TN many times for business- it’s really nice- and warm! There are jobs there too–like I said, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but eventually we’ll leave if this “successful people suck” tax rate passes. Funny thing happened too this weekend- a new Dr was supposed to come from out of state to work in my husband’s group, they really needed her (believe it or not the U and Mayo can’t staff all the state’s needs)…she changed her mind, she’s had “second thoughts about the city”. Like I said- the rich will leave and other “rich” people won’t come here. There was a Professor on the local news a few weeks ago that showed a survey that said people who have never visisted MN consider it “frozen tundra flyover country”. Believe it or not, you have to sell people on living here.
If you can defend taxes as high as Manhattan, then you, my friend are smoking some great weed.
I’m sad for what Minnesota will be like in another 10-20 years with the DFL in charge. California went bankrupt with a similiar tax scheme. But, California is still a beautiful place to live.
C’est la vie. I’ve bitched enough, you see, I’m a Republican. I don’t “whine” about things, I take them into my own hands and control what I can control. I’ve done the math on what this tax hike would cost my family and I can control where my family lives. Liberals seriously don’t get the market and they don’t get “the rich”. It’s quite laughable indeed. There- I’m in a better mood already.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Shozzy…I am so glad you are staying. You need to be in St Paul next summer when all of the Republicans are here telling the rest of the country how awful it is here. I am giddy with anticipation; if you guys promise to put Newt or Tancredo at the top of the ticket, I’ll write a check today to the Republicans for $100.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Shozzy:
I also have been looking into Sioux Falls. Maybe the DFL will make it illegal for anyone making over $75K to move. They actually have a lot to offer in the way of the arts.
There are many places in the U.S. that have advantages over Minnesota, contrary to the “quality of life” arguement the Libs keep trying to sell to the populace in order to justify their spending addictions.
I refuse to live under the communists much longer.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Otter- Oh, I’ll be sticking around long anough to watch Mpls become the laughingstock of the nation with all the freaks out protesting the Convention- and worthless PC Mayors Ryback and Coleman not doing anything to stop it– WTO Seattle anyone???
Oh, you bet I will!
PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Otter,nice try but no cigar, the DFL came up for air this year with the lies they told to get the votes – but after this week they will be deep sixed in the coming election.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I have to admit it is going to be nice having the Republicans here. I will be able to leave town for the week on vacation, paid for by the blue-bloods that will be renting my house. The great thing about the Republicans, they have so much money, I’ll be able to rent my house for twice what a Democrat would be able to pay for it. As for the city(s) turning into Baghdad during the convention, Norm secured a boatload of money for security this week, so y’all will have it under control. There are Republican sheriffs in both Ramsey and Hennepin counties, so we’ll be able to see the law-and-order party do their thing.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Hey otter,
Funny comments. I have to say that you’re wrong though about the Democrats being poorer than the Republicans. John Kerry is a billionaire (by marriage anyway). As is George Soros and Peter Lewis. Ted Kennedy is worth tens of millions of dollars, maybe more. John Edwards is worth tens of millions of dollars. In fact nearly all 51 Democrat Senators are millionaires. The top officials of the NEA, AFLCIO, AFSCME, Teamsters, IAFF, and other unions make between $300,000 and $600,000 a year. And these are just a few examples otter. I have been a delegate to the last three Republican National Conventions and can tell you that most Republican delegates are average people – not to burst your bubble.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 PM
And speaking of concentration camp bunkmates throwing their friends into the furnaces… Is George Soros going to buy a few billboards in St. Paul to stoke on his MoveOn freakshow?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Folks: I will defend the right of Republicans AND Democrats to post on Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
Please do not post personal information like the phone number for someone’s boss and suggestion people call the number.
Think people…think.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Chris there are rich Democrats to be sure. But look around this country at the high net-worth and high-income zip codes and you’ll find they are Republican. As far as I know, that’s legal, there’s nothing wrong with it. But it’s the truth. Go to a country club or a board room and see for yourself.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:34 AM
Conversely otter. Look to the nation’s poorest areas. The most crime ridden corners. Find out where the most murders happen, where drug addition is most prevalent. Where respect for human dignity is the lowest. And all these are getting worse. And you will find only Democrats in charge.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Hey Otter- Check out the real estate prices on Lake of the Isles and around Harriet…liberal bastions. Or prices in San Francisco for that matter or Manhattan. Liberals may not join country clubs because it’s simply too gauche for them, but please don’t tell me they’re poor. Do the math on the gang of 200 who signed the Strib ad last year about paying higher taxes. All liberals, all loaded.
A large portion of the DFL voting base may be poor, and you like it that way. We want them to make money, succeed and become Republicans.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Its hard to make generalizations about a country of 300 million, but you are not seriously arguing that the Democratic Party is the party with the most rich people, are you? Again, there are rich people who are Democrats, but he economic elites of this country are majority Republican. If you think that it is liberalism run amok among venture capitalists or at Spring Hill, you just don’t get it. There are poor Republicans and rich Democrats, but elected Republicans tilt the game toward the affluent.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Otter,
The rich who ID themselves as Republicans earned their money. The rich who ID themselves as Democrats inherited it… or work in Hollywood.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Otter,
You’re so misguided. Have you looked at the wealthiest elite in the country? The following people are all billionaires and are all Democrats: Bill Gates (#1 richest man in the world) Warren Buffett (#2 richest man in the world), George Soros, John Lewis, Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Martha Stewart, Ann Cox Chambers, David Geffen, Haim Saban, Marc Rich, Steve Kirsch, Stephen Bing, Bernard Schwartz, Michael Milkin, Robert Rubin, John Sperling, Irwin Jacobs, Eli Broad, Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. just to name a few. If you look at the wealthiest zip codes, they are not Republican areas. Look at San Fransisco, Greenwich, CT, Beverly Hills, New York City, Palm Beach, FL just to name a few.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Chris … Thank you for your comedic stylings. I stopped reading your post when I got to the first two names. Bill Gates endorsed Bush in 2004 and Buffett was Schwarzenegger’ economic adviser during his campaign in CA’s recall election. Last I checked, those are Republicans. Again, just because you can find some Democrats who are wealthy, does not mean I am incorrect in pointing out that Republican elected officials in general tilt toward the wealthiest when making policy. (See estate tax and capital gains tax policy which overwhelmingly favor people at the top end of earners.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 PM
… Otter… Bill Gates is a registered Democrat (another example of a liberal who stole his way to the top). Warren Buffet is a pretty big liberal too, though I don’t know what party he affiliates with… Buffet is almost Soros-like in his derrangement.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Chris, it’s worth repeating that Marc Rich is the billionaire who was indicted for tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran…. who’s wife gave millions to Bill Clinton’s campaign in exchange for a presidential pardon on the Eve of Clinton’s presidency. … the same Marc Rich who also illegally circumvented the U.N.’s “Oil for Food” program and took millions from Saddam Husein.
It’s probably also worth repeating that George Soros denied his religion and then actually helped the Nazi’s in Germany collect the belongings of Jews who had been shipped off to the gas chambers.
You hit the nail on the head though. The wealthiest of the wealthy are typically democrats. That’s how the term “limousine liberal” was coined.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Chestnut … You make this too easy. “Limousine Liberal” was coined because of NY Mayor Lindsay (A Republican!). He eventually left the Republican Party and tried running for office as a Democrat, but wasn’t able to get that party’s nomination. You need to stop getting your information from Hannity or Rush or Fox News and do some thinking for yourself. Just because some on this site never see a Republican sin doesn’t mean that people who do do not support Republicans and give them money.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 PM
otter,
You’ve been so fooled by the class war propaganda of the Democratic party. Just because Arnold consulted with Warren Buffet on CA’s economic policies doesn’t mean Buffet is a Republican. He’s not. And Bill Gates is no Republican either. Many Democrats endorsed President Bush because they didn’t support Kerry’s cut and run policies.
I think you’ve been reading too much union propaganda. Even the big labor bosses, who are supposed to be looking out for the average worker, are limousine liberals. John Sweeny, President of the AFL CIO made $291,718 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. Gerald McIntee, President of AFSCME made a whopping $584,980 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. Harold Schaitberger, President of the IAFF, made $318,574 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. And Reg Weaver, President of the NEA, made $417,858 in salary and compensation in 2005. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept. The NEA union also paid in 2005 $337,867 in salary and compensation to Lily Eskelsen – Secretary/Treasurer and $329,045 in salary and compensation to Dennis Van Roekel – Vice President. Source: L-2 Disclosure to Labor Dept.
How many union employees make anything close to the outrageous salaries the big labor bosses make?
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Chris … Again, nice list. Again, just because you can find the names of some people who are high-earning Democrats, that does not mean that Republicans are not the party who skews much more to the wealthy. And I don’t think I ever said union heads don’t make a lot of money. BTW, where did you find that Bill Gates is a “registered Democrat” (Chestnut)? I couldn’t find that, but I did find that he’s been giving a lot of money to Republican candidates and state parties all over the country.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Otter, you didn’t find any such thing. If you had done a simple google search, you’d have found this: http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp
Republicans on the list to be sure… but pretty soundly outnumbered by Democrats.
Jackass.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 PM
… in fact, otter, Bill gates gave more than twice as much to individual Democrats as he have to individual Republicans… and Democrats badly outnumber Republicans on the list.
I’d call you a bunch of names… but you’re already a liberal.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Chestnut …. wwww.opensecrets.org lists donations to parties and candidates. “…pretty soundly outnumbered by Democrats…” Did you read the link you cited? It says in that link the Republicans received more money from him than Democrats. If you include his donations to his PAC (which contributes more lopsidedly to Republicans) and his donations to state Republican parties, he gives far more to Republicans. But you said he was a “registered Democrat”. Do you have that link?
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Yes otter, I read it. And I am correct. In fact, I did the math. He donated nearly 48K to individual Democrats. But less than 25K to individual Republicans.
And there are many, many, many more Democrats on the list than there are Republicans.
Funny how you dumb ass liberals like to conjure up your own facts. It’s no wonder you’re in absolute fantasy land when it comes to things like taxation and economic policy. Forget about foreign policy, you dolts haven’t a clue.
Jackass.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Chestnut … You need to learn how to read. On the link that YOU cited as evidence of Gates giving “twice as much” to Democrats as Republicans it says he gave more money to Republicans than Democrats. Look three inches below the photo of Bill Gates and read it or have someone read it to you. Any of the other commenters want to help Chestnut out here or should we ignore him? On top of all of this, as I wrote before, the link you cited does not list his contributions to state political parties or his company’s PAC (which is overwhelmingly a funder of Republican candidates). And I’m still waiting for the link showing that Bill Gates is a “registered Democrat” as you asserted above.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Otter it says no such thing. Suggest you try reading again. Then, after that… use a calculator to tally up the contributions to individual Republican and individual Democrat campaigns.
My conclusions are completely accurate. You’re an imbecile.
Sorry otter, but once they don’t let you ride the short-bus anymore, you need to find your own transportation.
Man you’re dumb.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Chestnut … What are you looking at? On the link that you cited, just below the photo of Gates, but above the black horizontal bar it says: “Political Campaign Contributions by Bill Gates (1999 to Present) – $146,592 Republican 36% Democrat 33%”. You don’t need a calculator, it’s right there. The remaining percentage went to his and other PACs which are reliably Republican. And again, the link that you cited does not list any of his donations to state Republican parties and the like. “twice as much to Democrats as Republicans”? And what is the link showing that he is a “registered Democrat”, as you said he is?
April 4th, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Otter, I’m looking at the actual contributions given to INDIVIDUAL republican or democratic candidates.
It’s right in front of your stupid face. Read, count, tabulate. You dumb ass.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Once again, the link YOU cite as evidence says Gates gives more money to Republicans than Democrats. You are entitled to your interpretation of what that means, but you are not entitled to make up what it says in black and white. Do you see where it lists total contributions and the breakdown by political party?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Yes, idiot. And I see where it lists the individual campaigns and the amount contributed to each and their party affiliation.
Democrats outnumber republicans by a landslide. And the amount of money Democrats received is double what Republican candidates received.
Are you dumb? Or just lazy?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I guess I’m dumb. In reality (where I live) “36% Republican / 33% Democrat” means he gave more to R’s than D’s. And as I said before, this list does not cite the amounts he gave to state Republican parties (www.opensecrets.org). Do you have that link where he’s a “registered Democrat” yet?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:34 PM
No otter, you just don’t live in world with calculators and where you know how to use them.
Suggest you try.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Then the site is wrong when it says more money went to Republicans than Democrats. If you read this site to say twice as much money from Bill Gates went to Democrats as Republicans, I don’t know what to say. And of course this is not an exhaustive list at this site, as I’ve said. It does not include all PAC contributions and contributions to state political parties. And I’m still waiting for the link that shows Bill Gates is a “registered Democrat”. Is Brian Sullivan a “registered Democrat”, because he gave money to Sabo?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 AM
[...] Tarryl has lost her way since the days when she made these quotes: “Incoming Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, wasn’t available, but his top deputy, Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, said: ‘This forecast does not represent a heyday for people looking for money.’” [...]