All right - stick 'em up! It's tax time, partner!
Well, it's that time of year again. The time where we all need to take stock of the past year of our lives in terms of finances and monetary gain. That's right, it's tax season and time's running short on figuring out how much you made, how much you gave, and how much you owe.
I live in the great state of Minnesota. If it's fishing you want? We've gotcha covered! Do you want a top notch theater district, second in the nation to New York? We're your guy! You say you want a heavy and disproportionate tax burden? You've come to the right place!
Hold the phone there... wait a minute. What did I say something about the tax burden? Who in there right minds would want that? People who work hard for what they've earned certainly don't. I don't, you don't... but some members of the Minnesota government as well as a lot of the local press are all gung-ho. Why could this possibly be?
In theory, a far taxation system would have everyone paying the same percentage of their income in taxes as everyone else does. Let's say that two people live relatively the same lives: they work the same jobs earning the same income, go to the same grocery store and buy the same stuff, live in the same size houses, pay the same amount on their bills, etc. They each pay 10% of their income to taxes, which ends up being close to the same amount. Then suddenly, one of them comes up with a brilliant idea for a new product, works really hard to develope and market it, and is now worth $100 million dollars. Now, both people continue to shop at the same stores, live in the same houses, use the same amount of resources, etc. The newly rich business man will be paying more money in taxes because he now has more to start out with, but he's still only paying 10% of his income, just like his now poorer friend.
However, those people in state government and the local press whom I've mentioned above think that this is unfair. They see that the business man now has a lot of money and isn't spending any more than he originally did. Their solution is to increase the precentage of his taxes so that it "evens out" more with his poorer friend. This is called a progressive tax, but you might recognise it by another name: communism. They want to figure out a person's individual taxes not as a percent of the total tax burdern, but as a percent of their own, personal income.
Last I checked, we still live in a capatalist nation where if you work hard and earn money, you get to keep that money and spend it as you like. I don't believe the government has a right to take more of it away from you just because you happened to have more. I believe in maximum freedom within the bonds of necessary law and order. The groups I mentioned above seem to believe in a different system where the government has over arching power of the contry, with personal liberties trown to the wind.
So, why is this such an issue in Minnesota right now? Is the state going broke? No, not at all. In fact, we have a $2,000,000,000 surplus over the proposed 2008 state budget. This means that we actually have a $3,000,000,000 surplus as an extra $1,000,000,000 was budgeted in for 2008. Yet, many of the bills that are going before congress have tax hikes built in. We just passed one to raise the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon. Soon, another one is being proposed to raise property taxes yet again. Does this make sence to you?
As govenor Pawlenty says, "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem." With a huge monetary surplus, many of our legislators' don't want to stop spending money on stupid crap that we don't really need. They don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, so they raise the tax burden on working people, and much more for the most successful working people.
With this in mind, I will be attending a tax rally on the *steps of the capital on Saturday, April 14th at 12pm (noon) hosted by talk radio's Jason Lewis. A great article he's written on Minnesota's tax burden can be found here. I've never attended a rally/protest before. In fact, I've always considered it more of a hippy thing to do. But, I believe in clear and rational thinking, and calling a spade a spade. So, I will be there, and I'd love it if you could join me.
************************************************
*An interesting side note: The tax cut coilition went throught the necessary paperwork to obtain a permit for meeting on the capital steps to hold this rally. Recently, the Sierra Club (an enviornmentalist club) has announced that they will be holding a rally at the capital on the same day, at the same time. A rally permit already obtained for that day, they are free to rally there as well. It makes one wonder why they're not choosing to hold their rally on Earth Day, merely one week away. Could they be hoping the media will show up and all the top stories that night will read "Thousands show up in enviornmental protest!", rendering the tax cut message lost? Well, I don't know for sure - it just seems a little shady.
I live in the great state of Minnesota. If it's fishing you want? We've gotcha covered! Do you want a top notch theater district, second in the nation to New York? We're your guy! You say you want a heavy and disproportionate tax burden? You've come to the right place!
Hold the phone there... wait a minute. What did I say something about the tax burden? Who in there right minds would want that? People who work hard for what they've earned certainly don't. I don't, you don't... but some members of the Minnesota government as well as a lot of the local press are all gung-ho. Why could this possibly be?
In theory, a far taxation system would have everyone paying the same percentage of their income in taxes as everyone else does. Let's say that two people live relatively the same lives: they work the same jobs earning the same income, go to the same grocery store and buy the same stuff, live in the same size houses, pay the same amount on their bills, etc. They each pay 10% of their income to taxes, which ends up being close to the same amount. Then suddenly, one of them comes up with a brilliant idea for a new product, works really hard to develope and market it, and is now worth $100 million dollars. Now, both people continue to shop at the same stores, live in the same houses, use the same amount of resources, etc. The newly rich business man will be paying more money in taxes because he now has more to start out with, but he's still only paying 10% of his income, just like his now poorer friend.
However, those people in state government and the local press whom I've mentioned above think that this is unfair. They see that the business man now has a lot of money and isn't spending any more than he originally did. Their solution is to increase the precentage of his taxes so that it "evens out" more with his poorer friend. This is called a progressive tax, but you might recognise it by another name: communism. They want to figure out a person's individual taxes not as a percent of the total tax burdern, but as a percent of their own, personal income.
Last I checked, we still live in a capatalist nation where if you work hard and earn money, you get to keep that money and spend it as you like. I don't believe the government has a right to take more of it away from you just because you happened to have more. I believe in maximum freedom within the bonds of necessary law and order. The groups I mentioned above seem to believe in a different system where the government has over arching power of the contry, with personal liberties trown to the wind.
So, why is this such an issue in Minnesota right now? Is the state going broke? No, not at all. In fact, we have a $2,000,000,000 surplus over the proposed 2008 state budget. This means that we actually have a $3,000,000,000 surplus as an extra $1,000,000,000 was budgeted in for 2008. Yet, many of the bills that are going before congress have tax hikes built in. We just passed one to raise the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon. Soon, another one is being proposed to raise property taxes yet again. Does this make sence to you?
As govenor Pawlenty says, "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem." With a huge monetary surplus, many of our legislators' don't want to stop spending money on stupid crap that we don't really need. They don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, so they raise the tax burden on working people, and much more for the most successful working people.
With this in mind, I will be attending a tax rally on the *steps of the capital on Saturday, April 14th at 12pm (noon) hosted by talk radio's Jason Lewis. A great article he's written on Minnesota's tax burden can be found here. I've never attended a rally/protest before. In fact, I've always considered it more of a hippy thing to do. But, I believe in clear and rational thinking, and calling a spade a spade. So, I will be there, and I'd love it if you could join me.
************************************************
*An interesting side note: The tax cut coilition went throught the necessary paperwork to obtain a permit for meeting on the capital steps to hold this rally. Recently, the Sierra Club (an enviornmentalist club) has announced that they will be holding a rally at the capital on the same day, at the same time. A rally permit already obtained for that day, they are free to rally there as well. It makes one wonder why they're not choosing to hold their rally on Earth Day, merely one week away. Could they be hoping the media will show up and all the top stories that night will read "Thousands show up in enviornmental protest!", rendering the tax cut message lost? Well, I don't know for sure - it just seems a little shady.
posted by Laura Ibsen @ 11:50 AM
5 Comments:
At 12:54 PM, April 10, 2007,
Laura Ibsen said…
After I wrote this, I had a chance to chat with a friend who works for one of those legislators I mentioned in the article. He's someone whose opinion I respect, and so I wanted to learn why he felt it apropriate to tax the rich in ever increasing amounts.
He made a good point about how 10% of a poorer person's income, though not much in and of itself, is a much harder hit to them than a rich person's income taken at 10% for taxes. It was a good point.
At 5:47 PM, April 10, 2007,
Anonymous said…
Jason Lewis rocks. I went to a conference in the Cities last weekend and heard the Guv talk, and I wasn't too impressed, then I heard Jason Lewis talk and basically rip the Guv to shreds, and it was fantastic.
on a different note, I know what you mean about wry humor, re: my post on tax dollars at work. I have a feeling that there was more than a hint of leftist elitist condescension in the editor's email on that note.
on a not-so different note, I don't get why people couch their tax discussions in terms of 'rich' vs. 'poor,' because they are very subjective terms... maybe it's just me. oh well.
At 6:09 PM, April 10, 2007,
Laura Ibsen said…
I just said "rich" and "poor" because I'm lazy and didn't want to get into what different tax brackets consist of. :)
At 11:10 PM, April 20, 2007,
Chris Hill said…
Regarding a graduated income tax, it's more a concern of justice. It isn't just to tax a higher percent based on income. It was actually forbidden by the Constitution until it was amended in the early 20th century.
Yes, 10% is a hard hit if you only have $1000. But a fair tax could certainly allow for a "livable income" (in quotes, because this is a pretty ambiguous term) of untaxed money (i.e., the first $20k is untaxed... more for families, etc.).
I think a better option is a national sales tax. This taxes based on lifestyle, not income, which is more fair. The rich will still pay a lot more in taxes, and it will be harder for them to avoid them (indeed, the really rich only pay a small amount in taxes because they can afford to use their money in a way that gets many tax breaks). Also, foreigners and illegal "visitors" (aliens) can't avoid tax laws. Certainly there will be fraud, but a lot less (do a lot of businesses now avoid sales tax? It's not worth it cause they wouldn't make much more money if they did, and it's not worth the threat of government collection). Also, it will make voters realize the very heavy tax burden we have. Most voters, like me, pay very very little in taxes (actually, I paid zero). This gives incentives to politicians to raise taxes on the rich without consequence. A national sales tax of about 22%, I believe, would pay for ALL of the income tax currently collected.
At 11:33 AM, April 23, 2007,
Laura Ibsen said…
It's an interesting idea, Chris. I'll have to think about this some more. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home