« APRIL 15TH IS TAX DAY AND THE MINNESOTA DFL’S BIRTHDAY! | Home | HOLLYWOOD LIBERAL ELITE CONTRIBUTE TO FRANKEN’S CAMPAIGN »
PIONEER PRESS REPORTS ON MN GOP “TAXAPALOOZA” WEB-VIDEO
By Michael B. Brodkorb | April 14, 2007
"Minnesota politics took a funny turn Friday. The state Republican Party released a mocking Web-only video featuring the Four Tops' song 'Can't Help Myself' and accusing legislative Democrats of waging a "Taxapalooza." (See it at www.taxapalooza.com.) 'By showing them in their own words, Minnesotans will see that legislative Democrats were not being honest when they repeatedly said they would be fiscal moderates. For the DFL, it's clear every day is tax day and they just can't help themselves,' party Chairman Ron Carey said in a news release. Republicans also distributed 'Pawlenty Veto' pens, an allusion to Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's expected vetoes of any measures that include tax increases." Source: Pioneer Press, April 14, 2007 Click here for complete story.
Topics: Uncategorized |
April 14th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The MN GOP needs an Avidor….
April 14th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Too bad the Republicans “can’t help themselves” from shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and the poor.
Why do the top 1% of Minnesota wage earners deserve a 2.6% tax break over the rest of us?
April 14th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Oh more of that bullshit Robert… My goodness.
I’ll reiterate from last week, you have a good idea to give the middle class a 2.6 percent tax cut, and to raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent who pay nothing.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Robert,
Since you like taxes so much, I have an idea: you can pay mine. Let me know where to send the bill.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Here, before Bob get’s fired up, here’s the salient points of last weeks bombing that should pretty much refute and nullify anything he has to say… but in the end, he’s too confused by his own ignorance to understand what any of it means.
1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?DocID=1495&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=81&DocTypeID=2
I assume you can read.
Comment by Master of None — April 7, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
2. Robert,
How much is 10% of $100? (Hint: $10)
How much is 9% of $1000? (Hint: $90)
Which is more? (Hint: $90)
Comment by Master of None — April 7, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
3. If, a wealthy person pays 1 million dollars in taxes and a poor person pays 1 dollar in taxes, the wealthy person most surely paid more in taxes.
You can have the meaningless debate about effective tax rates all you want, but it does not change the absolute that the rich do absolutely pay more taxes… so much that, the bottom third pay absolutely nothing. And in many cases, actually get money back from the government, in addition to the abundance of services they consume.
If liberals were interested in a fair tax policy, they would be interested in ensuring that everybody pay something… and that the effective tax rate was equal.
The current tax system is not fair. But not in the way that liberals cry about.
Comment by Chestnut — April 7, 2007 @ 10:10 pm \
4. … and speaking of regressive taxes… is “tax fairness” the reason why liberals are proposing massive (300 percent+) increases to taxes on beer, gasoline, etc.
Comment by Chestnut — April 7, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
5. Per the Minnesota Department of Revenue:
* The middle 20% ($35,554-$58,509) pay 9% of the total income taxes
* The bottom 20% pays -.42% of the total income taxes, which means they pay nothing but still receive a tax refund (that’s NEGATIVE .42 PERCENT)
* The bottom 10% pays -.25% of the total income taxes (THAT’S NEGATIVE -.25 PERCENT)
It’s not tough Robert.
Comment by Chestnut — April 7, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
6. Even if your voo-doo statistics are right, and top earners pay a lower percentage… they still pay more in real dollars… to the point where they pay for nearly all of the overall tax burden.
The idea that they don’t pay their fair share is bullshit.
Comment by Chestnut — April 7, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
7. Comparing TAX BILLS is meaningless - you have to compare TAX RATES.
Robert, what you are comparing isn’t TAX RATES, it’s Percentage of Income. It has nothing to do with tax rate.
Sales Tax Rate — same for everybody
Cigarette Tax Rate — same for everybody
Property Tax Rate — proportional to property value
Fees such as Drivers License, Hunting License, etc — A fixed value, same for everybody.
Income Tax — a progressive tax where the rich pay the highest rate and the poor pay nothing.
Business Tax — this gets tricky. Business pass on their tax burden by a) higher prices b) lower wages c) lower profits. Exactly how somebody figures out how this is done is voodoo. Most of the studies that I’ve read in detail apportion business taxes in the most regressive manner for nearly all types of businesses except farming. It’s only because of this regressive assignment do your “percentage of income” tax rates show that the middle income brackets pay a slightly higher rate than the most wealthy brackets. I am highly suspect of this method of regressive tax assignment, and for some reason, it never prevents liberals from demanding higher business taxes.
Comment by Master of None — April 7, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
8. Actually, Robert… I did prove my point that the bottom earners have a zero percent tax rate.
You just need to read it.
Robert seems to agree with Joseph Goebbels on this: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
He’s either heard the lie. Or propagating it. Either way, “sense” is not something any of us will talk in to this mindless troll anytime soon.
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 8:01 am
9. Robert,
Here are some statistics from the IRS that completely obliterate your argument that the so-called rich aren’t paying their fair share.
The top 50% of income earners in the U.S. pay 96.70% of all income taxes. The top 25% of all income earners in the U.S. pay 84.6% of all income taxes. The top 1% of all income earners in the U.S. pay 36.89% of all income taxes.
Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
As for your argument that conservatives believe those who are hungry deserve to be hungry, let me show you a recent study about who receives government services (all services - not just welfare programs). The Tax Foundation study showed that the lowest quintile of income earners received roughly $8.21 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004. The middle quintile of
income earners received roughly $1.30 in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar of taxes paid in 2004. The top quintile of income earners received roughly 41 cents in federal, state and local government spending for every dollar paid in taxes in 2004.
So Robert, not only are the rich paying disproportionately more in income taxes (the top one percent of income earners pays 36.89% of all income taxes), they also receive disproportionately less in government spending. You should be happy about this Robert, not complaining about it.
Comment by Chris — April 8, 2007 @ 9:53 am
10. Robert, you’re full of shit. Nothing will change that fact.
BTW — to the start of your mental disease on display here, you’re wrong. Republicans don’t believe that the poor, etc. deserve to be that way. Rather, Republicans believe, earnestly, that it is within everyone’s reach to change their own situation. Conversely, Democrats believe individuals cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves, are unable to improve themselves, must be made dependent on government for their sustenance.
There’s nothing “progressive” about that.
Comment by Optimus Prime — April 8, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
11. … why do the bottom third pay 11 percent less?
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
12. There’s no conservative hypocrisy Robert. None. Just sound reasoning, and rational fiscal policy.
Again, why does the bottom 20 percent pay nothing? The top half pays 96 percent of the taxes.
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
13. Robert,
Why do you only include Minnesota taxes when judging tax fairness?
Most of the tax that I pay is federal income tax, which is highly progressive. If you were truely looking for tax fairness, you would look at the total effective tax rate, not just Minnesota.
The top 20% have an effective federal tax rate of 21.7% while the average of the bottom 80% of taxpayers is around 10%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxmodel/tmdb/tmtemplate.cfm?ttn=t06-0306
If you combine this with your Minnesota effective tax rates, the top 1% pays about 30% and the rest pay about 21%.
Isn’t that progressive enough for you?
Comment by Master of None — April 8, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
14. I’m a Minnesotan, and as a Minnesotan, I pay all kinds of taxes, including Federal Income tax. Why are you just concerned about a small percentage of Minnesotan’s tax burden?
You really aren’t interested in overall tax fairness at all are you?
“Why should the richest Minnesotans pay less taxes than the rest of us? ”
It seemed like you had finally understood the difference between taxes, tax rate, and effective tax rate, but I guess that concept is just beyond your capability.
Comment by Master of None — April 8, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
15. O.k., Robert. You’re right. We need cut taxes. I’m all for that. The middle class are paying way too great a share of their income, and Government has grown far too large. It’s time to pass the flat tax.
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
16. … and again, Robert… the richest Minnesotans pay more than anyone. Even if they allegedly have a lower tax rate.
Even if someone accepts your argument, it is absolutely false to say the “rich” pay less.
It’s bad enough you’re so ignorant, but inarticulate as well.
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
17. “The CBO shows that the top 5% of households (approximately equal income to our top 1%) pay an effective federal tax rate of 26%, while everyone, overall pays an average of 20%.”
Thank you for finally admitting that the top 1% of Minnesotans pay both a higher effecitve tax rate and also more in taxes than everybody else.
It took you over 100 posts to finally figure it out.
You’ll never make senior fry cook with the thinking skills you demonstrated here, but don’t worry, the world needs junior fry cooks too.
Comment by Master of None — April 8, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
18. Why? Because they already pay more than their fair share.
Old question: Why does the bottom 20 percent get an 11 percent tax break?
Hey, let’s give the middle class a 2.6 percent tax cut. I think the time has come to restrain government growth.
Robert makes a compelling argument for giving the middle class a solid tax cut, and for ensuring the bottom 20 percent pay their fair share. The time has come.
Comment by Chestnut — April 8, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
19. Robert and these liberals shouldn’t let a phony percentage argument play here. A person who is in the tob one percent of income will have an income tax rate as it’s argued because of this fact.
Total tax dollars/income will automatically be lowered just because you have a much larger number (probably several million) going into the number. It drives the stat down even if they pay lots more taxes. It’s simple math plus a PR trick since you want to create an impression that the rich don’t pay taxes.
Yes Robert can argue that property taxes are regressive just simply because a person who has to make a $10,000 propterty tax payment on a million dollars will have a lower rate than a person who has just a $1,100 property tax bill on income of $20,000
But Robert the rich pay far more in tax dollars! If a person with an income of $1 million only has to pay $90,000 I’ll like to know that person. A rich millionarie like John Edwards who claims to love the poor played games with his income so he can pay less taxes, but he still paid lots more in taxes than me.
Now Robert I work in motor vehicle office. Is it your suggestion that when a customer comes into the office to buy their car tabs that the tab table be based on income and I charge more for a person just because they have a higher income?
Is it your suggestion that gasoline stations should have built into their cash registers if a person claims to make $20,000 they get a lower rate on gasoline than a person who makes $80,000?
That’s the only way that you can have the true tax fairness that you complained about in so many posts.
So Robert where are those proposals?
Or how about this Robert since gasoline taxes hurt the poor more than the rich to get the gasoline tax rate? How about the sales tax rate? How about liquor taxes? Won’t that create more tax fairness?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment by Walter — April 8, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
20. Robert, no, I don’t think the poor only pay income taxes. But just as a question, if they are so poor, why are they buying things that get sales taxes on them? When I was divorced from my first hubby, who refused to the court ordered child support, I was only buying for food, clothing and other necessities, none of which get sales taxes. The only non-income tax I was paying was the license fees for my drivers license and automobile license. In otherwords, I wasn’t wasting my money on stupid crap that wasn’t needed.
Now let me ask this since you seem to be such a mental midget.
If you think the poor pay so too much, why are you supporting the DIMWITocrats tax hikes when those tax hikes include increased sales taxes, increase motor vehicle licenses, wheelage taxes and all sorts of other taxes that will hit the poor more heavily?
Comment by Honeydog — April 9, 2007 @ 4:05 am
21. … and nobody ever conceded here that Robert was right to any degree. It was acknowledged that perhaps the wealthy pay a lower tax rate, but it is unquestionable … and fully demonstrated that the wealthy pay more — a hell of a lot more — than any other group of citizens. And they bear the burden of the entire cost of government.
If Robert thinks that the middle class are paying too much, he should advocate tax cuts. Instead, he wants to put the screws to the “productive class”.
Comment by Chestnut — April 9, 2007 @ 7:00 am \
22. This was a great read. The old addage “figures lie and liars figure” rings in my ears. Fortunately the readers and posters ultimately get to make up their own mind. For me I’ll choose private answers to public problems, less government, lower taxes and more founding principles (freedom, liberty, justice, faith, independence….)
The name calling in this conversation is perhaps the most compelling analysis. The left has been unbridled in their ability to denigrate anyone who does not agree with their leftist positions. The right wins when they focus on facts. The right loses when they lower themselves to sparring in the feelings zone.
The facts ultimately shine through in this lengthy discussion. But Ribert does a cunning job of presenting pure emotional drivel packaged in what appears to be a well reasoned logical sweet smelling box. He should get an Academy Award for his act.
Beware the naked man who offers you his shirt.
Comment by Drew Emmer — April 9, 2007 @ 8:57 am
23. You’re right mary, the idea that the “rich pay less” is absurd. But the bottom 20 percent pay the least in terms of real dollars, and percent of their income… meanwhile they consume the most services. Some might say they get the best value.
Comment by Chestnut — April 9, 2007 @ 11:31 am
24. Robert,
I can explain why the so-called rich has a lower effective tax rate than the middle class. The reason is because for the last couple of decades, legislators in the State of Minnesota have been targeting the middle class with higher taxes. Carlson raised the sales tax .5% in 1991 to cover the deficit he inherited from Perpich. That sales tax increase was supposed to be temporary. We’ve been paying for the 1991 budget shortfall for 16 years. The legislature also has raised alcohol and tobacco taxes several times since the 1990s.
As if that weren’t enough, our cities and counties have adopted local sales taxes to pay for convention centers, stadiums, community centers, etc. In some places, people are paying well over 7% in sales taxes. The same city and county governments have raised property taxes above and beyond the levels LGA was reduced. They even raised property taxes in 2007 after receiving extra money from the legislature in 2006.
Robert, the solution to the tax crunch on the middle class isn’t to raise taxes that much more in the so-called rich. Abraham Lincoln said you can’t make small people tall by cutting off the legs of a giant. The solution is to stop raising taxes on the middle class. The current legislature has proposed transportation taxes that would cost an average family hundreds of dollars a year. They have proposed raising the gas tax 50% and indexing it to inflation. They have proposed increasing license plate tabs to $100 and higher. They have proposed creating a wheelage tax, where counties can collect $20 per vehicle per year just for the privilege of having a car on the road. They have proposed raising the metro sales tax to pay for more transit.
Robert, you’re not going to make those tax increases hurt people less by making the rich pay more.
Comment by Chris — April 9, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
25. Robert lets try to make this so easy even you can understand it:
At 11% a person with an income of $50,000 pays $5,500 in taxes.
At 9% a person with an income of $1,000,000 pays $90,000 in taxes.
Unless my public education is extremely poor $90,000 is not only greater than $5,500, but is $84,500 greater. Thus the rich do pay more (lots more in taxes) than the poor and middle class.
So Robert if the rich as you claim in so many posts are paying “less” in taxes why is the person with a million dollar income paying so much more in taxes.
Furthermore, Robert you still didn’t answer the other part of my post. Are businesses that collect taxes for the state of Minnesota such as gasoline stations, motor vehicle offices, department stores, etc expected to have programs in their cash registers to charge lower rates for people with lower incomes?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment by Walter — April 11, 2007 @ 8:31 am
April 14th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
LOL
April 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Not to inject any levity into the surprisingly substantive and relatively unhostile conversation that’s developing here, but:
“By showing them in their own words, Minnesotans will see…”
Is it just me, or is this almost a textbook edition of the dangling modifier? Grammatially speaking, the “them” should refer to the nearest clausal subject, which is Minnesotans, right? so:
“By showing Minnesotans in their own words, they will see…”
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Chestnut sure likes to hear himself talk. Just goes to show if you say something enough times, some people might believe it.
Poor people don’t pay any taxes eh? What about when they fill up their car? or heaven forbid buy a beer?
April 15th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Kip, since you are apparently too dense to realize this, one of these is a cut and paste of some of the comments from another thread.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Yep, a repeat of last weekend’s losing arguments doesn’t prove a thing.
Certainly those who earn more pay more of the tax bill. But they pay a lower rate. Why?
Many of Minnesota’s sales taxes are regressive. The income tax is progressive, but not enough to make our overall tax bill progressive.
Why should Minnesota’s tax structure be regressive overall?
The top 1% of Minnesota earners pay a lower tax rate than the rest of us. It is documented by the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Report.
Why do the top 1% deserve a 2.6% tax break?
April 15th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Anal Gramarian, …. funny point, but you have the subject wrong.
The video doesn’t show “Minnesotan’s” in their own words… it shows “DFLer’s” (them) in their own words.
So, the sentence is grammatically correct, as excerpted, because the “them” is already understood. To your point, this would be clearer:
“By showing DFLers in their own words, Minnesotans will see…”
Right Kip, poor people don’t pay their share of taxes. Their effective tax rate is NEGATIVE… beer and gas tax included.
Beer and gas taxes, btw… are voluntary… and btw, Democrats are prosing to raise the beer tax 300 percent, and the gas tax 100 percent.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Yep, Robert, repeating that same, wrong and tired b.s. from last weekend won’t do much for you.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Chestnut, you haven’t answered the question.
WHY do the top 1% deserve a 2.6% tax break?
The facts are documented clearly in the Minnesota Department of Revenue Tax Incidence Study. If you have a problem with their report, by all means, make your case.
Minnesota’s tax structure is regressive. WHY?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Oh, and Chestnut? The lowest 10% of income-earning households pay about 5% of their income in sales taxes… that’s beer and gas taxes.
The next 10% pay about 3% of their income in sales taxes.
The BIG LIE you are spreading is that the POOR PAY NO TAXES. Their EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IS NOT NEGATIVE.
Of course, if you can prove it, by all means, do so.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Still playing that harp Bob? It’s still the same, sour and lonely tune.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:58 am
… and I see you’ve come part way, and agreed that the lowest 10 percent receive a 6 + percent tax cut. Whey do they deserve it?
Do the math Bob, you rocket scientist.
If someone earns 14,000 per year (well within the bottom bracket), and pays 5 percent of that towards sales tax, that’s $700. Meanwhile, the Minn. Department of Revenue reports that that individual actually has a negative tax rate of .42 percent, which means they receive $588 in return.
Which proves, using your numbers and official Min. Dept. Rev. statistics that the bottom pay nearly NOTHING.
So, Bob… why do the bottom 30 percent deserve a 11 percent tax break?
The big lie is that the rich don’t pay their fair share… meanwhile the bottom feeders pay nothing and use the most services.
Bye Bob!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Robert,
The top 1% deserves to get a tax break because the top 1% provide jobs. The bottom 10% need the jobs provided by the top 1%. It’s called economics. Maybe you should give it a study.
Also, you said the bottom 10% pay 5% of their income in taxes because they buy beer and gas. Well guess which taxes your friends in the DFL are trying to raise this year? That’s right the gas tax and alcohol taxes. They want to rasie the gas tax by 50% and they want to double alcohol taxes. Which party is the regressive party now, Robert?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Wow, Chestnut… drinking so early? Almost everything you posted was inaccurate.
Let’s take your $14,000 person. They are in the 20% decile of the population. Their individual income tax rate is -0.6%. Their sales tax rate for individual purchases is 3.1%. (Figures from table 2-3, page 29). Their overall effective tax rate is 11.3% (table 1-6, page 16).
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/legal_policy/other_supporting_content/07_incidence_report.pdf
In other words, your $14,000 person pays about $1,582 per year in Minnesota taxes. That’s not nothing!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Sure, Chris. Just prove your assertion that the top 1% provide jobs.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in America. Microsoft Corporation employs thousands of people. Warren Buffet is the second wealthiest man in America. His corporation, Berkshire Hathaway, employs tens of thousands of people - both through Berkshire as well as through the dozens of companies under the Berkshire umbrella. Those are just two obvious examples. How many of the bottom 10% are employers?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett live in Minnesota?
Just prove your assertion that the top 1% of Minnesota taxpayers employ enough people to deserve a 2.6% Minnesota income tax break.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Robert,
The question isn’t who deserves a tax break. The question is who are you to take their money. Why do you feel you have the right to take something that belongs to somebody else?
That’s not to say we don’t have an obligation to pay taxes. Our tax burden should be reasonable and it should be based on economic principles not that we’re jealous of rich people and want to sock it to them.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Jealousy has nothing to do with it. It is a question of paying your fair share.
The top 1% pay 2.6% less than the rest of us. That’s the people with incomes over $354,000 a year.
Why do they deserve to pay less than the top 5%, earning $146,000 or more, or the top 10%, earning $104,000 or more?
You are claiming that the top 1% of Minnesota taxpayers provide jobs, but the rest of the top 10% or 20% don’t?
Just prove your assertion.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Work is work. Everyone should be paid the same. Then all this argument about who deserves what would go poof.
And Chris, anyone who makes money on the backs of labor are already taking money that doesn’t belong to them, so taxing them more is merely returning money to those should have gotten it in the first place.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:37 am
RuralMN,
I believe you just espoused the core tenants of the Communist Mannifesto. Great job!
April 15th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Those who make more income should pay more taxes - that is, they should pay a higher tax rate. They can afford it easier, and they benefit more from the infrastructure created by public investment.
For example, who benefits more from a freeway? The person without a car, or the person who owns a business that gets deliveries by semi truck?
Who pays for the freeway? Some comes from gas taxes, which comes from everyone who drives, including the delivery companies. Those costs are passed on to everyone in terms of gas taxes, higher prices in groceries, etc.
The person who makes their money from profits from business that runs on distribution benefits more from the public investment. We all pay in many ways for the investment.
Those who benefit more from the public investment should pay a higher tax rate, to make up for their increased benefit.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:00 am
When looking for places to raise taxes, we ought to look at ways to raise them on non-Minnesotans!
For example, the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence report contains this gem:
It is apparent from the table that some taxes are borne by Minnesotans in much greater proportions than are others. Of the large state taxes, the income tax is borne almost entirely by Minnesota residents, who pay over 96 percent of total collections. Minnesota residents pay a smaller share of the general sales tax (81 percent). At the other end of the scale, Minnesotans are estimated to pay only 13.4 percent of the property taxes on industrial property.
Hmmm… only 13.4% of industrial property taxes are paid by Minnesotans? Why not raise industrial property taxes and give residential properties a break?
This would partly reverse the Republican shift of property taxes from commercial to residential properties several years ago.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Robert,
It’s obvious you’ve never taken an economics course. Which gives me an idea. Let’s tax ignorance. That would bring in billions of dollars to the state!
April 15th, 2007 at 11:17 am
All you got is name calling, Chris.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:18 am
What name did I call you, Robert?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Answer the argument, Chris.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I did answer the argument. If you want to eliminate commercial industrial property (ie. factories, corporate headquarters, shopping centers, etc.) all you have to do is raise the taxes and make it less attractive for those businesses to exist. An example of this was when former President Bush raised the so-called luxury tax. When that happened, the yacht builders up and down the East Coast of the U.S. started going out of business. The people who worked for the yacht companies became unemployed.
As for your argument about rich people benefitting more from public resources than poor people, that’s completely untrue. Households in the lowest quintile of income earners receive $8.21 in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes. Households in the top quintile of income earners received 41 cents in government spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.
My question for you is why do you trust the government to spend money more than you trust people? Why do you think it’s okay for the government to take something away from someone just because they have more than you do? What about people that have LESS than you, should they be able to take something from you just because you have more than they do? My faith is in the people. Yes, we do need a government and we need government spending. Yes, we need a safety net to help the most vulnerable in society. But that doesn’t mean we need to tax the hell out of someone because they have something someone else wants.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Here is the link to the study about which quintile receives what in government spending:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2282.html
April 15th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Bob, I suggest that you examine your calculator. 3.1 percent of 14,000 is $434.
Are you this stupid naturally? Or do you practice?
Your entire argument is without merit.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Those who make more income should pay more taxes”
… and they do… they pay nearly all of the cost of government, as is unquestionable.
“that is, they should pay a higher tax rate”
Bullshit. The idea that they would logically pay more taxes has nothing to do with the belief that they should pay a higher rate. Why should high-income earners be punished for their productivity?
“They can afford it easier”
Who the hell are you to make that judgment?
“and they benefit more from the infrastructure created by public investment.”
That’s absolute bullshit. As has been demonstrated, the lowest earners pay almost nothing and consume the lions share of the services. In your world Bob, there is no “public investment”… rather, theft from the wealthy to create services for others.
Take your communist bullshit to the next blog Bob.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
No, Chris. You asserted that the top 1% of Minnesota wage earners provided enough jobs to justify their 2.6% tax break, but provided no evidence.
You didn’t answer my assertion that the wealthly benefit more from public investment than individuals, and should therefore pay a higher income tax rate.
Minnesota is a great place to run an industrial business, since we are importing those businesses. We could raise those taxes slightly and have very little impact on Minnesotans, since out-of-state owners would have to pay them.
You’re right about some yacht-building companies suffering after luxury taxes were imposed. Some Democrats changed their minds about these taxes, but I believe strongly in luxury taxes. They are progressive taxes. If not as many yachts are bought, or built, and some yacht-builders have to find other work, so be it. That’s where having strong government programs for retraining and unemployment are important.
Your figures about who pays the tax bill are incomplete (they only refer to income taxes), and they do not address the central point - a rich person in Minnesota PAYS A LOWER EFFECTIVE TAX RATE than everyone else in Minnesota.
In addition, those in the lower income ranges pay quite a lot of taxes instead of income taxes. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. You conveniently ignore this fact of life.
I’m not suggesting we “tax the hell” out of anyone. My point is that the rich in Minnesota pay LESS TAX than everyone else, when they should be PAYING MORE. They benefit more from the public investment, so they should pay more tax.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Chestnut, check your calculator. 11.3% of $14,000 is… yes, $1,582.
According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, that’s how much tax they pay.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Too bad the facts aren’t on your side, Chestnut. Everyone can tell you are losing when you resort to name calling.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Bob some how has reduced the state sales tax to 3 percent. Fascinating… I guess the poor pay a lower sales tax… what, do they wave their W-2 at the cash register?
He said the income tax for someone making $14,000 is –.6 percent. That means, they actually get $840 back, and pay nothing in.
He said they pay 3.1 percent of their income to sales taxes. That’s $434.
Then he pulls 11.3 percent out of his ass, and says they pay a higher tax rate.
You’re not going to get a job at NASA with math skills like that.
The facts are absolutely on my side Bob. They’re unquestionable.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Robert,
The so-called rich don’t benefit more from public investment than other income earners. I have never seen a study to support your conclusion. Where is your source?
I never said that the top 1% have to justify their tax cuts either. You said that. What I said was why should we tax the people who create jobs. Have you ever heard of Glen Talyor and Taylor Corporation? Curt Carlson (who is now deceased) and his daughter Marilyn Carlson Nelson who is the CEO of Carlson Companies? Those two businesses alone employ tens of thousands of people.
You’re right that the poor pay cigarette taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, etc. But who is proposing raising those taxes now? The DFL. They have proposed increasing the gas tax by 50%, adding a wheelage fee, raising license tabs, and raising the sales tax in the Metro area. They have proposed doubling alcohol taxes. There has even been talk of doubling the cigarette tax.
I question your whole logic about residential property taxes. People who live in a community receive direct services for their property taxes. They get their roads plowed, sweeped and maintained. They get wastewater treatment facilities. They get fire and police protection. They get libraries, community centers and other programs. Why should someone else have to pay for those services? I’m not saying I agree with the choices communities have made with respect to raising property taxes vs. delivering services more efficiently. But we elected the local officials who make those choices. It’s not fair to pass the buck for the choices we made to someone else.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
No, Chestnut. I’ve sourced my facts. They are on my side. You apparently just don’t understand them.
You mistake my reference to the poor paying 3.1% of their income in sales tax AS the poor pay 3.1% sales tax. Pitiful.
You claim that 0.6% of $14,000 is $840. Just think about that for a moment. 1% of $14,000 is $140. 0.6% is a bit smaller. 0.6% of $14,000 is $84.
You might want to check your tax return.
There’s more than income and sales taxes. Don’t forget the property taxes and business taxes that get shifted onto the poor.
I’d suggest you really read the Minnesota Department of Revenue Tax Incidence Study.
How can really tell when you’re winning an argument with a conservative? They wave the white flag by calling you a “communist”.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Here Bob: Prove this malarkey:
“the wealthly benefit more from public investment” … by the way, make sure you define “public investment” as an “investment that government made by taking money from the wealthy.”… it sure as hell isn’t from the public. Also explain how “the wealthy” differ from “individuals”…
Next, explain who the hell you are to make this judgement: “should therefore pay a higher income tax rate.” Until then, we assume you mean to punish productivity. … which, actually is backed by a number of other arguments you’ve made that would, in effect, incent businesses to leave the state and increase unemployment.
Those luxury taxes you love put blue-collar workers out of work. … but you’re o.k. with that… “… so be it.”
Essentially, you’re for government policies that put blue-collar workers out of work, and which railroad them in to government programs paid for by higher taxes, which put more people out of work, and lower the tax base. This is proof positive that liberals should be thrown out of office.
At the end of the day, this is the cold, hard fact: The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 90 percent of the cost of government. The Bottom 50 percent pay 10. The top 25 percent, pay 75 percent of the cost of government. The bottom 30 percent pay next to nothing.
Seriously Bob, are you really this stupid?
I don’t think anyone should give a shit if the top 10 percent pay a lower effective rate, even if they do… because the shoulder an unrepresentative share of the tax burden.
It’s fine if lower earners pay sales taxes. So what. If you’re concerned with that, then you’ll oppose DFL plans to double gas tax, raise the sales tax 1 percent and triple the tax on beer.
If you want to air a coherant argument, use the correct language… You in fact are arguing that we tax the hell out of the rich… because you make stupid statements like: “My point is that the rich in Minnesota pay LESS TAX than everyone else…” When if fact, they do not pay less…
Here, I’ll help you out. Repeat this mantra everytime, and then you won’t be confused by your extreme ignorance. What you want to say is not that the wealth pay less. You want to say: “they pay a lower rate.”…
QUIT CONFUSING LOWER RATE WITH LESS TAX. It’s not the same thing for fuck sake.
Which brings us all to the question: What rate should anyone pay? And can’t we just eliminate this shell-game by enacting a flat tax, period. Everyone pays it…. including the poor… which, by every measure Bob, do NOT pay their fair share…. but if we’re a compassionate society, maybe they shouldn’t… on the other hand, we shouldn’t incent them to stay poor either.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Chris, it is a matter of simple logic. The grocery store owner who ships in produce from California or other places can’t operate without the freeway.
The guy without a car doesn’t use the freeway. He might buy groceries, he might work for the grocery store.
Either way, the grocery store owner benefits more. And the guy without a car pays for it by paying higher prices for groceries.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I didn’t mistake your bullshit at all. I understood that you said the poor pay 3.1 percent of their income to sales tax.
For our example of the $14,000 wage earner… 3.1 percent (.031) of 14,000 is $434.
I’ll concede I dropped a point on the income tax… Still, that’s a far fucking cry from 11.6 percent or whatever number you pulled out of your ass. In fact, it’s an effective rate of 2.5 percent….
Even if the poor paid property tax, that’s pennies… they don’t pay business taxes, because you’re talking about individuals…
I suggest you read the rest of the data out ther Bob, and quit having your opinions spoon fed to you by goofball talking points.
End the jealousy and hatred Bob.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“The grocery store owner who ships in produce from California or other places can’t operate without the freeway.”
I’d argue the consumer benefits more, by having access to products from California.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Robert,
That logic just doesn’t hold water. How can you say that the grocery store owner benefits more from the road than his employee or the people who buy the groceries? How can you apply the whole benefit of the freeway to one guy’s grocery store? That’s where you lose me.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I don’t have the authority, but I would concede the argument if someone can explain to me how our incomprehensibly complex system of taxes, starting with the 67,000 page IRS code can POSSIBLY be fair, when it treats every dollar earned and every dollar spent differently? Why should I pay more tax out of the second dollar I earned than I do on the first? And why, if I “spend” it in the right way, do I escape taxes entirely? Does it really matter if I made it from selling something I bought elsewhere, something I made, money I invested, or my salary? It does to the IRS. Does it matter if I spend it on a new piano for my house, or a new piano for the church, or a new piano for my mother? It does to the IRS. Is that fair?
April 15th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Robert a couple of questions here:
One, I have asked you a couple of times if businesses such as gasoline stations, liquor stores, and car registeration offices should have programs built into it so a person who makes $30,000 will pay less as a percent of income than a person who makes a million dollars. You keep refusing to answer that question. Why?
Two, if we reduce the tax rate so the person who makes just $50,000 pays 8% thus paying just $4,000 and the person with a million pays 8.1% thus paying $81,000 will you object to that? I have a feeling you might since my numbers mean that the $50,000 income gets a tax cut of $1,500 while the person who makes a million gets a tax cut of $9,000.
The problem is Robert you’re fixed on having a percentage number be higher as income goes up which can’t be done in the laws of mathmatics. Here’s a twist you haven’t taken into account Robert. Using your rates a person with an income of $50,000 pays $5,500 while a person with an income of $1,000,000 pays $90,000. Do you know the person with the million dollars pay 1,536% more in taxes!
So Robert the rich do pay in percentage taxes far more in taxes so you should be satisfied!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
April 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Chestnut, you crack me up. Really. You call me names left right and center, then tell me to end the jealosy and hatred. Check the mirror, buddy.
The 11.6% EFFECTIVE MINNESOTA TAX RATE is documented in the Minnesota Department of Revenue Tax Incidence Report. The link for the report is above. Challenge their methodology if you like, but it is their number, not mine. And the report is specifically designed to address the question of tax fairness.
You specifically said I claimed the poor pay a lower sales tax rate. You want to take that back too?
The poor pay business taxes, because those taxes (as conservatives often claim, and the Minnesota Department of Revenue accepts) are at least partly shifted on to others, in the form of lower wages and higher prices.
According to the report, our mythical $14,000 wage earner pays 5.6% in business taxes, or $784 per year. This is yet another place where regressive taxes hurt the poor, and favor the rich.
Overall, the burden of Minnesota business taxes on Minnesota households was regressive. As shown above in Table 2-4, the effective tax rate fell as income increased. The effective tax rate was 5.6 percent in the second decile; it fell steadily as income rose, reaching 1.9 percent in the tenth decile.
Again, unless you can refute the numbers from the Minnesota Department of Revenue, the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR ALL MINNESOTANS is about 11.6% in 2004, estimated to grow to 11.7% in 2009.
For those who earn over $354,758 (the top 1% of wage earners, 24,668 households), the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE is 9.6% in 2004, estimated to fall to 9.3% in 2009.
Why are we cutting taxes for the richest of the rich? Why should Minnesota taxes be regressive overall?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Chris, you make the point that Carlson and Taylor employ many people. I belive that Carlson and Taylor control corporations that employ many people.
What’s the difference? The difference is in who gets taxed.
I am saying that the top 1% of wage earners in Minnesota should pay a slightly higher tax rate than the rest of us, not a lower rate.
I’m not saying we should tax corporations that employ people.
I’m saying we should tax individual’s income.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
And Chestnut, I am most certainly NOT for policies that put people out of work. We need to encourage more jobs, and higher wages for those workers. That puts more money in their pocket, to spend in local businesses.
Cutting taxes for the richest of the rich does none of those things. Do the rich spend locally? Do they invest locally? If so, we should have tax credits to encourage that behavior.
But what happens when the richest just buy more US Savings Bonds, put more into their tax-sheltered retirement accounts, or sock more away for their trust funds? How does that money specifically help Minnesotans? The answer is that it doesn’t.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Walter, I’ve heard your question about sales taxes. I’m concerned that we put far too much emphasis on sales taxes, which are generally regressive. And of course you aren’t serious in suggesting checking income at the gas pump.
On the other hand, I support charging a higher license fee for more expensive, newer, and larger vehicles. They make more use of our roads.
In answer to your 8%/8.1% question, that would be more like progressive taxation. The problem is, is that enough to pay for everything we need?
Do we have enough roads, transit, police, schools, firefighters, hospitals, libraries, etc? Do we have enough saved for a rainy day so our state has a good bond rating? Are we happy with employment falling, as it is predicted to do in 2007?
In answer to your 1500% more, that’s the TAX BILL, not the TAX RATE. We have to compare apples to apples. That’s what the Tax Incidence report is all about.
Say you and your neighbor compared paychecks. You both run small businesses and employ people. You make $200,000 and he makes $400,000. You find out he pays less than twice the taxes you do. How can this be?
It turns out that you pay 10.9%, but he pays 9.6%. He has more disposable income, and pays more on the tax bill, but a smaller percentage than you do.
Is this fair? I say NO.
Do the richest of the rich deserve a tax cut when other small business owners are paying more? I say NO.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:40 am
So in other words Robert, you don’t give a damn if Person A pays 2000% more in taxes than Person B if Person A is only paying 10% of his total income and Person B is paying 10.1% of their income.
LOL and then on top of it all, you think that’s a tax cut for the person making more money.
I got news for you…………….then Person B can quit stopping buying so many non necessary items that get sales tax or YOU STUPID LIBERALS CAN QUIT TAXING THE LIVING CRAP out of things.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I’ll just let Bob’s last posts speak for the volumes of ignorance and lather at the mouth that they are.
The guy says the rich pay less tax, which is demonstrably false. But he says that because he’s confused about the words “less tax” and “lower tax rate”.
Bob, I never said that you said (sounds like an 11 year old girl) that the poor pay a lower tax rate. I quoted your claim, very clearly, that the poor pay 3.1 percent of their income to sales tax… o.k., for a 14,000 earner, that is only $434…. you cannot, without witchcraft, raise their overall tax burden to 11.6 percent, because the poor pay no income tax.
Honestly Bob… your ignorance is thick. Dumb as a bag of hammers.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:12 am
The best line of the night is that “business taxes get shifted to the poor through lower wages.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
That there is a laugh riot. Wow!
And yet, this idiot wants to raise the taxes on business…
Here’s what Bob is for:
- Raising unemployement
- Lowering wages
What a moron.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:27 am
This is the same argument my wife, who works for the democrats, and I, a independent libertarian type, figured out before we got married. On one end is a poll tax where every citizen pays the same dollar amount and is not at all progressive. The next is a flat tax in which everyone pays the same percentage of their income which is progressive by nature since the more you make the more you pay. Next is a graduated income tax which can increase the amount of progressiveness by increasing the percentage taxed as income rises.
None of these include what happens to the overall tax burden when sales, property, sin and other taxes are included as they are hard to tie to a particular income level as poorer people may forced to drive because of a certain situation while a weathy downtown condo owner may be able to walk to their office. A big reason the wealthiest pay a slightly lower overall percentage despite a higher income tax rate is that they are investing that income in ways that are taxed differently or not at all such as IRAs 401ks capital investments etc..
The discussion should not be about whether or not the tax system is or is not progressive, it is, the discussion should be about how, if at all, progressive it should be. The only way this can happen is to simplify the system, anything short of that will leave us with endless arguments where nothing is gained because nobody can really know what is going on with enough certainty to convince others to change thier views. That and a massivly simplified system would allow for more money to be spent on roads, schools, corn or tax reductions, take your pick.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Okay Robert thank you for a few statements of support here.
Your major point was do we have enough money. The state budget under Governor Pawlenty will go up by $3 billion without increasing taxes. That means there is more than enough money to spend on our needs! No need to do new tax increases and certainly we can do tax cuts maybe to make you happy do it on the taxes like the sales tax so the poor get the most benefit.
You apparently are in favor that a person who makes $50,000 should pay more than a person who makes million on taxes such as gasoline, car tabs, liquor, sales. Robert that makes you a hyprocrite since it’s these taxes which make up the gap on the income tax where the rich person automatically pays a higher rate! It’s these taxes which drive the percent of tax burden up which you quote left to right. Yet the DFL to the best of my knowledge is proposing tax increases in all of these things along with income taxes.
Yes I wish I was making $200,000 and having to pay that tax bill. But when I look at my tax bill and compare it with the person who makes $400,000 like you ask I’ll think “Man I was soaked bad enough, but this guy is being taken to cleaners” Robert that will be my reaction since I will be seeing an additional $16,000 in state income taxes (assuming the 8% rate), an additional $70,000 in federal taxes (assuming a 35% rate). That’s $86,000 more than me and almost half of that income jump. So Robert using your example the person who pays $400,000 will be paying more in taxes. I also realize that his percentage will go down just because he has $400,000 to divide into his other taxes while I only have $200,000. Your percentage argument is PHONY!!!
Robert just for your information the system is rigged to charge newer more expensive cars higher taxes. But to take that comment and show how silly your argument is lets say we have a person who makes $50,000. They want to go out and buy a new car. I haven’t gone shopping for a new car, but lets say they can stop at $20,000 which they will pay off with a car loan. That person will pay $1,300 in motor vehicle sales tax
and since I don’t have the motor vehicle reg book in front of me $300.
A person with an income of a million dollars goes oout and buys a brand new fancy sports car worth $60,000. He’ll pay sales tax of $3,900 and reg tax of lets say $900
The person with an income of $50,000 will pay
$1,600 or 3.2% of their income this year for the taxes on the car. The person with an income of one million will pay $4,800 in taxes (so see the system that forced this person to pay more) the percentage will be just .48% of their income on car. So the system would’ve done exactly what you want Robert, but force the person with the lower income to pay a higher percentage of their taxes.
That is why your percentage argument you hold so dear is so phony.
And Robert part of the problem why these taxes are charged so much is that goverment spends money on programs which shouldn’t be funded to take away money from essential programs. Not to mention the money that we do spend can be better spent. If the city of Minneapolis spends more than $10,000 per student we should be cranking out Rhodes Scholars not drop outs who can’t even read a high school textbook.
So Robert will you finally drop this silly argument because there is a person in the department of Revenue to show his job is needed goes out and creates new stats which can help keep him employed.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Dear Bubba,
Please share your thoughts on a flat tax on income and/or a consumption tax and the abolition of income taxes.
Thank you in advance.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Robert,
You seem to have a problem with the so-called rich putting money in their retirement accounts. Do you have a retirement account? Because if you do, you should be happy others are investing too. Investment is something we need more of — not less. Investment puts money into corporations which employ people and pay dividends to people like you (hopefully) and me who have 401K accounts or IRAs.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
One other thing Robert,
You said this about cars: “On the other hand, I support charging a higher license fee for more expensive, newer, and larger vehicles. They make more use of our roads.”
That’s actually not true. Newer cars and semi trucks use more modern suspension technology that actually use less of the road (as in wear and tear) than older vehicles do. In fact, there is a proposal to increase truck weights by requiring them to use more axles — thus taking more weight off the road surfaces.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
With all due respect, Iceberg, that’s not the correct definition of progressive taxation.
A flat tax is not progressive, even though the more you earn, the more you pay. It is not regressive either. It is the middle point in the range.
A progressive tax is one that increases in percentage as