Posted on 05/10/2010 6:16:48 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
The Democratic-controlled Legislature pushed Monday to send new income taxes for the highest-paid Minnesotans to a tax-averse Gov. Tim Pawlenty as part of their plan to wipe away a $2.9 billion deficit.
The proposal barely cleared the Senate on a 34-33 vote before heading to the House. Pawlenty, a potential Republican presidential candidate, eliminated any suspense by promising to veto it.
Lawmakers and the governor are hard-pressed to balance the budget before the state constitution requires the legislature to adjourn in a week. The state Supreme Court made the crisis more acute last week when it said Pawlenty exceeded his authority last year when he ordered budget cuts without legislators' approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Fine. Let the a-hole judges and their partners in crime come up with the money from their slush funds then.
The MN Supremes are becoming increasingly activist.
I suppose the Progressive Income Tax is inconsistent with equal treatment, but there's just NO WAY a Court will hear an argument that would change screwing the working folks by taking their earnings and buying the votes of the 4th generation welfare group....
Without a tax-the-rich-bastards-because-they-can-afford-it mentality, we'd not have any of that "OBAMA MONEY.....FROM HIS STASH...."
How many did Pawlenty put on the court?
Like everything else the left is doing, it’s all about control via vote buying.
Democrats have opposed equal protection for 142 years now.
How do they keep anyone up there?? The climate’s lousy amoung other things.
Tax the rich = they get up and leave. Who gets hit? The working and middle classes.
Four.
You know it and I know it.....
I don't give a crap if they wanna buy votes; I just don't think they should be able to force me to give them the money to do it!
Taxing the rich hasn’t worked too well in the State of New York from what I understand. The rich have, and are, moving out and New York’s tax revenues are decreasing. The Liberals in Minnesota haven’t figured that out, and probably won’t.
Same result in California. If you do the math, you can see where a flat income tax in CA of 3% plus a sales tax applied to all consumption of another 3% would raise $20B/yr more revenue than those CA taxes do now. So even without spending cuts, just getting the freeloaders to contribute would solve our budget gap.
Yet, people are so in love with “progressive” taxes and punishing the “rich” that our income tax runs as high as 10% and our sales tax is over 10% because it excludes groceries, rents, and all other services.
Obama was wrong. We don’t “need to spread the wealth.” We “need to spread the tax burden.” See how much govt spending the freeloaders support when they have to pay their fair share.
Well said. In fact I would go further and eliminate all state income and corporate taxes and have a 10% sales tax that includes everything except medical services and prescription drugs. That means the gangbangers and illegals would pay their fair share.
I wish a sales tax alone would work, but it won’t. At current spending levels, the rate has to be too high. The willingness to evade a tax goes up logarithmically with the tax rate. And with State sales taxes, the wealthy people will move away rather than absorb the pain long enough for the newly taxed low-income voters to vote down govt spending to achieve a lower sales tax rate.
The illegals will be paying much more in taxes even with a 3% rate if it applies to everything because it won’t be worth avoiding. At 10% applied to everything, the wealthy will leave rather than illegally evade it; but the illegals will just create a gray market in food and services to evade the tax.
A high sales tax rate also penalizes local purchases in favor of mail order and online from other states with lower sales taxes. That happens now because the rate on products is already 10%. Lowering it to 3% would revitalize local brick and mortar retailers, warehousing, etc. which means jobs in CA. At 3% people will choose convenience of local shopping while at 10% people are willing to wait a week for shipping, and to heck with preserving local jobs.
Retirees are spending a lifetime’s accumulated savings, so additional sales taxes would hurt them more than reductions in income taxes could offset. If they eat out as much as my parents do, the 3% on everything won’t cost any more than the current 10% tax on take-out food ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.