Fact is, Bob doesn’t know shit from shin-o-la.

I have a friend and a brother who both, in their own words, get far more from the government in cash, than they pay in. My friend was ashamed, my brother bragged. My brother also lives in government subsidized housing and receives food vouchers. When his three kids go to collage I’m sure he won’t have to pay a dime.

These people use the same roads, same police, same military, same emergency services as me. Yet the rich are not paying their fair share? Come on. Get off of the crybaby percentage crap, true or not, and own up to the facts and the examples that are all around you.

“He said they pay 3.1 percent of their income to sales taxes. That’s $434.” (for someone who earns 14,000)

Honesty, is there anything from facts to grammar to logic that you can keep straight?

You’re so incompetent in all regards, it’s easy to understand how you came to be so absolutely wrong and misguided on this issue.

Literally, you are the blind leading yourself.

I’m a little upset because I gave you a response to your post and when I entered it the response went to Neverland. So let me try to recap the response:

* I don’t think that you are talking about sales tax increases such as gasoline, car tabs, liquor, etc. The problem is it’s these taxes which cause your magic percentage you talk about left and right. Yet you want to look the other way and not do any reforms. Even worse you don’t blink an eye when the DFL proposes increases in these taxes.

* Your last post said the rich get quite a tax break over the rest of us. When I took your example of trying to compare a person who made $200,000 compared with $400,000 I showed that person will pay $86,000 more in taxes or at least 43 cents for every new dollar earned. That isn’t a tax break! And if you’re not happy what do you want that rate to be? Fifty cents? Sixty cents? A dollar ten?

* You think we can’t educate a child for $10,000 especially in Minneapolis. I propose that you give each parent $7,000 and allow them to designate their kids school you will see a dramatic improvement in performance including those difficult kids that you think can’t be educated.

* You say that schools are meant to educate kids. Part of the problems with immigrants now is that they don’t want to accept American standards. They want Americans to accept their standards. Great example, the airport taxi cab program where the muslim drivers don’t think they should be forced to drive passengers who have liquor. Some of these immigrants are educated adults who can speak English quite well.

You devoted a large percent of your last post to crime. Do you realize what one of the major sources of crime is? I’ll give you a hint. After the states of Illnois, Indiana, and Wisconsin did real welfare reform (lower benefits, demand employment regardless of kids) a lot of people moved to Minnesota. And when the state adopted a law that said for the first six months you can only collect the rate of the state you came from if it was lower the Minnesota state supreme court struck it down. A major source of criminals are families with no fathers (something that welfare encourages). If Minnesota does real welfare reform that will make a dent in the long term about our crime problem.

You complained about the costs of keeping people in jail. Robert a large percent of crime is by repeat offenders. We will dramatically cut down crime if we actually proscute and than keep in jail criminals! I’m in favor of those costs you cite because the costs in terms of fear not to mention human and protery loss is far greater.

I don’t get your health care proposal. You’re saying a business can spend money on health care for their workers, but if you’re the boss you can’t get health care.

You say us conservatives don’t get it! Robert it’s you who don’t get it. Even though a person pays $90,000 in taxes versus $5,500 you think the person who pays $90,000 has a tax break! You seem to think the rich have lots of money floating around that they don’t deserve even if they work their butts off which might mean way more hours than you work. And even though the state has a surplus you don’t blink an eye when the DFL proposes $4 to $5 billion in tax increases not to metnion what Congress wants to do. There are proposals to raise the lowest income tax rate Robert!

Robert I will keep responding to try to get you to understand. Because right now you don’t get it all!

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf

What I’m saying is that the small business owner’s gross income (line 7) for the business is subject to expenses (Part II) before being considered net profit (line 31) and therefore taxable income (transferred to 1040, line 12).

That means the smart small business owner increases expenses that benefit themselves or the business as much as possible, because that shelters the business income from taxes.

So I’m calling for taxes on income – not business income, personal income – which is net of expenses.

First of all, I like this conversation. I appreciate having a civil and thoughtful exchange without too much screaming and name calling, etc. You challenge me to respond to a well thought out argument and I enjoy that very much.

Now let me respond to your argument. The reason people choose different vehicles to set up their businesses has more to do with the extent they wish to (1) limit personal liability and (2) distribute ownership of the entity. A corporation or an LLC are two of the most popular ways to limit small business owners from personal liablity. Let’s say a person comes into your store and comes into contact with the peanut butter sandwich a child is eating. They’re allergic to peanut butter and die from the reaction. That’s an extreme example but the victim of the peanut butter attack could sue the corporation for negligence but they couldn’t sue the owner/s of the corporation personally except for very limited circumstances. That’s what I mean by shielding an individual from personal liability.

The other reason to form a corporation or an LLC is to document the distribution of ownership: 10% to Bill 10% to Sally 80% to Don.

The other consideration is taxes. A corporation can file as a C-Corp (and is actually required to be a C-Corp under some circumstances that are dependent on a large number of shareholders among other things) or a Subchapter S Corp. A C corp taxes the corporation at the corporate tax level ranging from 15% to 35%. After the corporation pays taxes, the individual is taxed again at the personal tax rate depending on how much income the person receives from the corporation. Essentially, the person is taxed twice. That’s why most small businesses file as Subchapter S corporations where all of the corporate income passes through to the individual and is taxed at the individual rates. Raising the taxes on the so-called rich hurts small business owners who are usually Subchapter S corporations.

That’s a longwinded and complicated explanation to your response. But it has nothing to do with so-called perks (I don’t know too many people who consider paying their own health insurance premiums as a perk – which small business owners have to do). It has to do with the tax code which is over 65,000 pages long.

That’s why I support a flat tax with high exemptions. A finer point I’d like to make is that if you want to make our tax system less regressive, reduce or eliminate sales taxes, keep license tabs at their current rate, don’t raise the taxes on alcohol or cigarettes, etc. The current DFL leadership want to raise all of those taxes: sales tax, license tabs, gas tax, wheelage taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, etc.

The smart business owner uses their corporation to provide all the possible tax-deductible benefits possible to themselves as corporate expenses, which are deductible expenses to the corporation (in varying degrees).

The smart business owner sets up retirement plans and health care accounts or health insurance plans within the corporation for their own benefit.

Some of these benefits “flow through” to the business owner, it is true. But many of these valuable benefits are paid by the corporation, reduce the amount of the corporation’s profit, and are not taxable to the owner as a wage earner. (Yes, there are exceptions and places where this is only partly true.)

What I’m proposing, increasing the individual income tax rate on the highest-earning Minnesotans – those who make over about $350,000 per year – does not count, for the most part, all of those benefits: the SUV, the office, the cell phones, the computers, the vacations, the lunches, etc, etc.

I’m proposing raising the income tax on actual WAGES earned as employees of the corporation. This would also include direct draws of profit by business owners, yes. But not all the perks.

If a small business owner wants to pay themselves a high dollar salary, and take all the profits out of the corporation for personal spending, then I think it is fair to tax them just as if they were a high-paid manager at a larger organization.

On the other hand, if they are smart and agile and work the tax code to their benefit and get a ton of perks, well, so be it.

There is a whole mix of taxes, including sales taxes, license fees, income and property taxes, and it is not easy to keep the effects of all of them straight. The state passed a law requiring the Department of Revenue to analyze the situation fairly and come up with a report.

Overall, our tax system is regressive. This is not a phony argument, it is based on real analysis of real people’s taxes in Minnesota. There are some assumptions made in the report that I’m not sure I agree with, like ignoring the effects of itemizing deductions on reducing taxes. That assumption alone makes the system seem a lot more fair that it otherwise would. However, I accept the report overall as a balanced analysis by tax experts on the situation.

It shows that overall, our taxes hit lower income people harder than upper income people. And if you look at the highest earners, they get quite a tax break over the rest of us.

I understand you’re against spending $10,000 per kid to educate them. Maybe in your neighborhood, city, or suburb that’s more than enough. In Minneapolis, where like 1/3 of the kids don’t even speak English as their primary language, and where many of them need free or reduced price lunches, the students are much more challenged.

So what, right? To hell with them. Why bother? I’ll tell you why. Every American family was an immigrant at one time. Public schools gave us a common bond, a common language, and a common understanding. It is a way to build the community, to build America.

What’s the alternative? With no school, no job, and no prospects, some turn to crime to feed their families. Then what are the costs to society?

You can’t drive downtown for fear of carjacking, mugging, or murder. You worry about your kids getting mixed up with drugs, which are getting sold everywhere. Taxes keep going up for more police, more jails, and more courts.

There are about 9000 (8500 male, 500 female) inmates in Minnesota who are being incarcerated at the cost of $80.11 per day… $98.84 per day if you include indirect costs like buildings and administration. And 36% get convicted of another felony after release.

Say it was $100 per inmate per day. That’s $900,000 per damn DAY, $328 million per year. That doesn’t count the social costs of their behavior.

http://www.corr.state.mn.us/publications/legislativereports/documents/PerformanceReport200601-31-07.pdf

It is frankly cheaper and safer to educate and assist people than to criminalize them. A radical concept, I know. But true, nonetheless.

Education is a community-building public safety issue, just like many other things that liberals support.

It’s just that conservatives don’t seem to see it.

I will give you a lot of credit for understanding why it’s usually unwise to raise taxes on businesses – because the business will turn around and raise prices or cut wages.

Let’s take the discussion one step further. Most small businesses are either partnerships, LLCs or Sub Chapter S Corporations. That means that the business income passes through the business entity and is taxed to the individual as ordinary income at the individual’s tax rate. Raising income taxes on the so-called rich accomplishes the same thing to these business owners as raising corporate tax rates.

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?

As far as business taxes getting shifted onto everyone, including the poor, in terms of lower wages and higher prices, this is what the Minnesota Department of Revenue has to say on the subject:

Although the legal impact of each of these taxes falls on the business entity, each is partially shifted to consumers (in higher prices) or in some cases to labor (in lower wages). Only a portion of business taxes are borne by capital owners as a lower rate of return on their investment.

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 your income rises.

A regressive tax is one that increases as your income falls.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

I’d argue the consumer benefits more, by having access to products from California.

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.

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.

“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.

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”.

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.

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.

According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, that’s how much tax they pay.

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.

… 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.

Are you this stupid naturally? Or do you practice?

Your entire argument is without merit.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2282.html

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.

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!

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.

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.

I believe you just espoused the core tenants of the Communist Mannifesto. Great job!

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.

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.

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.