« CORRUPT FRIDLEY PLANNING PROCESS TO BOOST NORTHSTAR PICTURE | Home | OUT WITH THE OLD: TEACHERS UNION BECOMING IRRELEVANT AND DESPERATE »
DFL LEGISLATORS INTRODUCE NEW AND INNOVATE SOLUTION TO BUDGET: RAISE YOUR TAXES
By Andy Post | January 24, 2011
DFL Senator Ann Rest wasted no time last week introducing a bill to adjust Minnesota’s tax law so that clothing would no longer be exempt from the state sales tax. S.F. 83 would remove the exemption currently in place. Fortunately for the thousands of businesses in Minnesota that thrive on this exemption, the bill probably won’t even get out of committee.
Sen. Ann Rest, from MN Senate Webpage
Here’s the text of the bill:
S.F. No. 83, as introduced – 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Jan 20, 2011
1.2relating to taxation; repealing the sales tax exemption for clothing; adjusting
1.3the sales tax rate; creating a clothing sales tax credit; appropriating money;
1.4amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 116.92, subdivision 8; 297A.62,
1.5subdivision 1; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 290;
1.6repealing Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 297A.61, subdivision 46; 297A.67,
1.7subdivision 8.
1.8BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.9 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 116.92, subdivision 8, is amended to read:
1.10 Subd. 8. Ban; toys, games, and apparel. A person may not sell for resale or at
1.11retail in this state a toy or game that contains mercury, or an item of clothing or wearing
1.12apparel that is exempt from sales tax under section 297A.67, subdivision 8, that contains
1.13an electric switch that contains mercury.
1.14 Sec. 2. [290.0683] CLOTHING SALES TAX CREDIT.
1.15 Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms
1.16have the meanings given.
1.17(b) “Income” has the meaning given in section 290.067, subdivision 2a.
1.18(c) “Dependent” has the meaning given in section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code.
1.19 Subd. 2. Credit allowed. A taxpayer is allowed a refundable credit against the tax
1.20imposed under this chapter. The credit is equal to $60 for a married couple filing a joint
1.21return, and $30 for all filers, plus $30 for the first dependent claimed on the return, $15
1.22for each of the second and third dependents claimed on the return, $10 for the fourth
1.23dependent claimed on the return, and $5 for each subsequent dependent.
2.1 Subd. 3. Limitations. The credit allowed in this section is reduced by $10 for every
2.2$1,000 of income in excess of 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.
2.3 Subd. 4. Appropriation. An amount sufficient to pay the refunds required by this
2.4section is appropriated to the commissioner from the general fund.
2.5EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for taxable years beginning after
2.6December 31, 2011.
2.7 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 297A.62, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
2.8 Subdivision 1. Generally. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3 or in this
2.9chapter, a sales tax of 6.5 … percent is imposed on the gross receipts from retail sales as
2.10defined in section 297A.61, subdivision 4, made in this state or to a destination in this
2.11state by a person who is required to have or voluntarily obtains a permit under section
2.12297A.83, subdivision 1 .
2.13EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for taxable years beginning after
2.14December 31, 2011.
2.15 Sec. 4. REPEALER.
2.16Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 297A.61, subdivision 46; and 297A.67,
2.17subdivision 8, are repealed.
2.18EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for taxable years beginning after
2.19December 31, 2011.
Tags: DFL Legislators, Senate DFL Caucus, Uncategorized
Topics: DFL Legislators, Senate DFL Caucus, Uncategorized | 43 Comments »
43 Responses to “DFL LEGISLATORS INTRODUCE NEW AND INNOVATE SOLUTION TO BUDGET: RAISE YOUR TAXES”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:03 PM
I wish these spend-drunk Democrats would fall over themselves as fast on the concept of cutting spending and waste as they do with methods of increasing taxes.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:44 PM
Ann Rest? That dopey broad got re-elected? Sheesh.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:45 PM
Scott, this is just the beginning. They will be looking at taxing everything, including your kitchen sink.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:48 PM
Rest wants to tax all clothing and then let poor people file to get back what they’ve paid in taxes.
Hey, if they are poor, they are probably too stupid to figure out how to file to get the money back. Works to the DFL’s benefit because they get to keep the money and they also get to claim that they helped the poor. Another scam.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Anyone with a brain knows that if you tax something, you get less of it.
Therefore, we should tax the poor heavily. Confiscate most of their income. Tax welfare benefits. Tax food stamps. Tax medicaid. Tax child support. Tax section 8 housing.
Tax all those items to the hilt and I get people would figure out a way to get off those programs in a big hurry.
I’m just sayin’……
January 24th, 2011 at 3:28 PM
She’s also introduced a bill to allow 17-year-olds to vote:
“Election Law: SF 22 allows 17 year olds to vote in primary elections if they will be 18 years of age before the general election and otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to vote. Such a change would allow these young voters the opportunity to participate in the candidate selection process determined in primary elections.”
http://www.senate.mn/senators/45Rest/update/11/WeeklyUpdate02January0142011.pdf
January 24th, 2011 at 4:03 PM
“Hey, if they are poor, they are probably too stupid to figure out how to file to get the money back.”
Motego. You are such a rube. Keep hating on poor people and the programs that help them. When you’re in their shoes struggling to find a home or feed your kids you’ll be begging for the safety net the GOP is dismantling.
Ignoring the poor will not make them go away.
“we should tax the poor heavily. Confiscate most of their income.”
Neither will this.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Senator Rest is both honest and realistic, two qualities that have on occasion hampered her in her political career. She has failed to learn the lesson the last election taught us, that is, political posturing and the avoidance of tough choices is one sure-fire way to political success.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Hector, I’d argue with you, but winning an argument over a liberal is kind of like winning a race in the Special Olympics. When it’s all over, you only beat a bunch of retards.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Shamster, most of us have struggled. Unlike you, I didn’t run to the government for help. I got some good advice, worked even harder at finding a job, and never collected one penny of welfare. I worked part-time to get through school and didn’t take out any loans because I didn’t want to come out of school poorer than when I went in. It can be done.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Lassie, you can bet that the MEA will be right there to tell the 17 years exactly who to vote for. Good grief.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:54 PM
Hector, the election of 2010 was not about the avoidance of tough choices. It was about fiscal sanity.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:05 PM
OK you add a sales tax on clothing, then throw in a credit against that tax, how is this going to add revenue?
Answer: Non residents of MN or other people who don’t file tax returns in MN.
What Ann Rest doesn’t understand is that some people do come to shop in our border towns and the MOA because we don’t tax clothing. It may raise some revenue on the sales tax but it will probably just be lost in decreased income tax revenues.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:09 PM
“I’d argue with you, but winning an argument over a liberal is kind of like winning a race in the Special Olympics. When it’s all over, you only beat a bunch of retards.”
I get that a lot.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:47 PM
jp, rest assured that tax raising liberals ABSOLUTELY understand that they are also sticking it to non-residents. They just don’t give a damn.
January 24th, 2011 at 7:42 PM
Monte, it isn’t that they don’t understand that they are raising rates on the non res. I think the DFL sees them as an uncracked piggy bank.
I don’t think they will get the revenue that they expect. They will net some from this tax, but, it’s just another reason for people not to shop here. So if you had a choice of shopping in Hudson or Stillwater/ Duluth or Superior/ Fargo or Moorhead for clothing your decision is going to tilt away from MN if Ann gets her way.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:15 PM
jp, agreed. They see EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING as a possible source of revenue to the government.
They don’t give a damn about the businesses that will suffer as consumers vote with their feet and do their shopping elsewhere.
It goes back to the basic liberal attitude that we are all here to support the government. We are their serfs. That is how they see us.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:21 AM
Folks read line 1.10. It looks like she’s trying to sneak a sales ban of some products in this bill.
They’re in no hurry to ban government from doing lots of things because they think it’s a good idea.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 25th, 2011 at 12:37 AM
“Ignoring the poor will not make them go away.”
Neither will providing expansive entitlements. I put seed out in the bird feeder, and suddenly I’ve got sparrows and bird shit all over my deck…. so I stop doing that.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:26 AM
#3) I just bought a new sink for the house.. it was taxed. LOL
January 25th, 2011 at 8:32 AM
“Ignoring the poor will not make them go away.”
Neither does subsidizing either bad behavior or poor life choices.
Award bad behavior, and all we get is more bad behavior. We have seen this since the Johnson Admin.
Punishing the working successful is not the solution.
Plus helping the poor is the function of Churches, Synagogues and Mosques.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:54 AM
We don’t really need to waste a lot of breath on this Senator. Nothing she does will even get out of committee. However, it is good to document her efforts so the next challenging Republican can ‘target’ specifically on this type of Democrat whom taxes before cutting spending. We need to continue the DFL ‘purge’ from our state government.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:55 AM
#15) The only thing Democrats do seem to care about is keeping those Unions funded.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:58 AM
6) They need to move voting age to 26. It appears that is when Democrats say youth are responsible for themselves.
January 25th, 2011 at 9:01 AM
#2) Yeah, but her office was moved across Capital campus. I hope she has a thick parka. LOL
January 25th, 2011 at 10:50 AM
DFL LEGISLATORS INTRODUCE NEW AND INNOVATE SOLUTION TO BUDGET: RAISE YOUR TAXES
Like our friend Hector illustrates every day for us… Democrats just do not have a clue.
January 25th, 2011 at 1:49 PM
“Ignoring the poor will not make them go away.”
“Neither will providing expansive entitlements. I put seed out in the bird feeder, and suddenly I’ve got sparrows and bird shit all over my deck…. so I stop doing that.”
Haha! Damn poor people! Always shitting on things!
“Neither does subsidizing either bad behavior or poor life choices.”
Silly them. Don’t they know getting paid minimum wage is bad behavior? Don’t they know the job they can’t find, because it doesn’t exist makes them lazy! Don’t they know being born colored is a poor life choice!
Silly, stupid poor people.
“Punishing the working successful is not the solution.”
But punishing poor people is? Christ! If you saw someone drowning you’d start pissing on them wouldn’t you?!
When 1 in 100 people can actually afford a flotation device why is it so crazy to ask them to fucking buy one? Is that really such an evil idea to you?
January 25th, 2011 at 2:41 PM
If I saw Shamanistan drowning I would piss on him.
Shamanistan just does not understand that Republicans prefer to help people find employment unlike Democrats who prefer to keep them totally dependent on the Government.
Democrats have to have people dependent on the Government in order to win elections. Republicans need people to take personal responsibility and work to improve themselves in order to win elections.
I will never understand how liberals can pat themselves on the back for working hard to keep people poot.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Poor.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:50 PM
“Damn poor people! Always shitting on things!”
Figuratively and literally, yes. I suppose that’s why Democrats bar them from living in their communities and don’t send their kids to government schools.
Bottom line is this: There is no legitmate function whatsoever of government to steal money from taxpayers in the name of benevolence. None.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:51 PM
On another note: I’m not ammused by Michelle Bachman’s “Tea Party Response” to the State of the Union.
Seems self-serving and stupid.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:30 PM
“Republicans prefer to help people find employment”
I would laugh if I wasn’t clenching my teeth in rage. Don’t get me wrong. Your policy of letting people starve is definitely motivating. It also happens to be morally bankrupt.
“Democrats… prefer to keep them totally dependent on the Government”
Oh shit! “Focused” went there! You’ve clearly infiltrated their ranks and found their secret plan!
You ass. What the hell do you think governments are for? People form them. Then DEPEND on them to protect a standard of living. They DEPEND on them to protect their health. They DEPEND on them to not stab them in the back.
“I will never understand how liberals can pat themselves on the back for working hard to keep people poor”
Where was I… You ass! How can you even pretend like Republican policy doesn’t only serves the richest 5% of people in the country! Don’t get me wrong. Half the Dems are corporate assholes too. But seriously. I know you probably don’t believe in things like “science” and “facts”. But can we at least stay in “reality”.
“Democrats bar them from living in their communities and don’t send their kids to government schools.”
Dude. How much do you want to bet that a majority of poor people vote democratic. Ya can’t really ban yourself from your community to easily.
“If I saw Shamanistan drowning I would piss on him”
You think a little golden shower is going to bother me? I’m a sexually liberated liberal!
January 26th, 2011 at 9:53 AM
Bachmann did a much better job pin pointing the problems than Ryan, But both needed more specifics on which programs and departments to outright cut. NPR, ACLU… defunding Sanctuary Cities, Dept of Energy and Education.
Bachmann did a much better job pin pointing the problems than Ryan, But both needed more specifics on which programs and departments to outright cut. NPR, ACLU… defunding Sanctuary Cities, Dept of Energy and Education…
Obama’s teleprompter had no real solutions either, no detail, no practical vision. Oh yeah, there was one, produce an energy source substitute to replace gas at the same price within the next four years. Forget that it doesn’t exist yet –HA Perhaps we should just stick to watching air pressure in our tires?
January 26th, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Shamanistan, Government does not exist to provide Charity. The Salvation Army, the Shriners and other Charities exist to provide Charity. They do it better, with less overhead cost and nobody is forced into giving.
Government does exist to provide National Defence and Law and Order and that’s about all it should do.
I’m sorry that your enraged at the comments here, maybe some group therapy would help you.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Shamanistan’s comment #32 is further evidence that Democrats have no fucking clue what the role of government is in a free society. More proof that liberals simply have to be removed from every level of government.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Look. I’m sorry for yelling. But this is serious.
The issue isn’t that I don’t understand the role of government. It’s that I don’t understand your vision of governments role.
You’re insistance on pushing half the population out of the democratic process is evidence of your true priorities.
Listen. Helping the needy is always a good use of money. Whether its a church, the shriners, or the government. Here’s why I believe we shouldn’t pay the feds.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/49-49/4730-us-government-commits-avian-holocaust-with-mass-poisoning-of-millions-of-birds
January 26th, 2011 at 12:25 PM
“Look. I’m sorry for yelling. But this is serious.”
It’s not the yelling, but the stupidity that’s offensive.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:27 PM
“You’re insistance on pushing half the population out of the democratic process is evidence of your true priorities.”
Explain. As I recall, it’s been Democrats in recent years who have violently intimidated voters at polling locations.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:27 PM
“Helping the needy is always a good use of money.”
Indeed. But holding a gun to my head isn’t a very good means to that end.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:29 PM
“Whether its a church, the shriners, or the government.”
I think there’s a world of difference between benevolant organizations that do their work with the support of voluteer contributions, and those that level a gun at my head and demand payment.
Yes, there’s a world of difference.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:38 PM
“Helping the needy is always a good use of money.”
Enslaving people to a lifetime of government and political dependence isn’t “help.”
January 26th, 2011 at 7:34 PM
Shamanistan, I don’t care if you yell or not. However, you should care if you are getting that worked up over a few posts on a website you might need help.
I think we agree that Charity is a good thing. Where I couldn’t disagree more is that using Government force to decide for me who gets my money or yours is Charity.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:40 AM
sotaman Says:
It’s not the yelling, but the stupidity that’s offensive.
LOL, good one.