Not just Wisconsin that the Middle and Upper Class in Minnesota maybe moving to. 

The DFL have unveiled a plan to try and convice you they are doing something about rising tax rates but in all reality is doint nothing but borrowing from one group to pay another.  Another round of income distribution at the capitol in St. Paul.

Calling it revenue neutral to try and garner support from Republicans and Democrats because of past failures of their inability to do anything on the property tax front.  In a column by Lori Sturevant stated, "Lenczewski and Marquart proposed to ease the property tax burden on homeowners least able to bear it, by putting the state's property tax refund program, or "circuit breaker," on steroids. It would bulk up state refunds to homeowners whose property tax burdens are disproportionately high relative to their incomes, making it big enough to block next year's expected property tax increases for a majority of Minnesotans."  While in the very next line it states, "The circuit breaker's growth would be funded by scaling down or eliminating the itemized state income tax deduction for property taxes and the market value homestead credit."  While you call this revenue neutral I call it another way to indirectly tax upper income wage earners in Minnesota.  You might as well have said you wanted an income tax hike.

So Ms. Sturevant and her ever so slanted rhetoric and uses the Growth and Justice approach to taxes and states, "The latest calculations say top earners pay about 9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 12.5 percent for middle earners."  But no real economist, no real political scientist, no real journalist would use statistics the way that they are being used here.  If you bought their philosophy or method then when you went to a grocery store - you would give them your zip code and depending on where you live would determine how much you would pay.  For instance, on the proposal that the DFL and Ms. Sturdevant would support if you lived in say 55345 you would pay $5.00 for a gallon of milk and in 55412 you would pay $2.50.  If you went in to buy a car and entered your zip code of 55317 you would pay $40,000 for a car and in 55411 you would pay $10,000 for the same car. 

Ms. Sturdevant mentions $200,000 income levels but my wife and I make nowhere near that and we do not get a property tax rebate and the amount we get to deduct on our income taxes does little to impact the amount of taxes we pay to this state or the federal government.    So the prixed tax deduction that she claims and must know little about is nonsense.  Prized by who - the liberals who get the same tax deduction.  Or maybe she doesnt review her own taxes to know the limited affect and really has no clue what she is talking about.  So I ask you how much do they have to tax the upper income earners before they leave?  How many of the few tax breaks that upper income, and upper middle income earners get before they leave?

Let's state it again a different way for clarity sake I will give another example to help make my point.  For instance, Taxpayer A makes $75,000 a year. If he pays 12.4% in taxes (and this would include all taxes like sales tax, property tax, etc) then he would pay $9300 in taxes a year.

Taxpayer B makes $450,000 a year. If he pays a total of 9.3% in taxes (again this includes all taxes), then he's paying $41,850 in taxes a year.

Now lets take into account the bottom wage earners are paying a -.42% (yep, a negative amount), so that means they are getting back more than they pay in.

It hardly sounds unfair to me this is an issue of fairness but and issue that the middle class is always paying more because the DFL keeps adding regressive taxes which hit those in the middle and lower class more.

To buy into the DFL argument on paying taxes the private sector should charge you for their products or services based on your ability to pay.  Again If you buy into the DFL argument and make $100,000 a year - a haircut would cost you $100, a loaf of bread
$10, and a Chevy Impala $50,000.  However if you only make $30,000 then a haircut would cost you $5, a loaf of bread $.50 and the Chevy Impala would cost $7500.  We don’t expect the private sector to base their prices on ability to pay (but at market price that does not care who walks through their front door) that is what the market is for and government should not set taxes for services it delivers on the ability to pay either.  The fact is that the lowest income earners are those using the most government services and pay little if any taxes and those at the high end use very little if any government services and pay a disproportionate amount for those services.

But what does the Minnesota Department of Revenue tax incidence study say?  Fact is that this incidence study when reporting facts on a level playing field that the top 10% of Minnesota pay over 55% of the income taxes in this state and pay over 37% of all state and local taxes. Minnesotans in the top 1 percent of income (about 23,600 of Minnesota’s 2.36 million households) paid over 12% of all state and local taxes – and over 24% percent of the income taxes. Source: 2007 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study, page 27. So you see that Ms. Sturdevant, the DFL and Growth and Justice which is really just an extension of the DFL anyway is spinning the truth to suit their needs. Truth is the highest income earners get the least government services so they are disproportionately are paying more than their fair share.

But again this does nothing to put the breaks on property tax increases just who is paying for them.  So instead of holding the line on out of control government spending locally, the DFL is taking money out of someone elses pocket to pay for someone else's property taxes.  Call that tax fairness - I call that socialism at its finest in Minnesota.  What will break the system is that many of us are to the breaking point and will leave this state if pushed much farther and take our business, income, investments elsewhere and then you can tryly have your nanny state as there will not be anybody left to pay for it.

Property Tax Dollars - Minnesota House Research

This trend in higher property taxes will continue with this proposal and there will be little accountability at the local level as the local taxpayers will be told that they will get more of a rebate back to jusitfy the growth in property taxes raised by your city and government.  The fact is that the economic pains, the economic hurt in Minnesota and this nation can not be solved by simply shifting who is going to pay for government's inability to control its spending appetite.  As Ronald Reagan said when he came into office in 1980 it is about choices and priorities.  We have to make tough decisions now to cut spending, lower taxes, and reduce the footprint of government only then will we have a true economic recover in Minnesota and in the U.S.  Ms. Sturdevant, the DFL and groups like Growth and Justice do not help solve the problem only fuel the flames of government growth and the government is the end all and be all for society.

You want real impact on Minnesotan's you prioritize spending in Minnesota, you make tough cuts to get rid of needless government programs, you cut taxes.  That is how the middle class will survive in Minnesota.  Not simply allowing the government to grow on auto pilot with the beleifs somebody else will pay for it!

The Minnesota House and Senate passed a constitutional amendment increasing funding for the outdoors, the arts and the environment via a 3/8 of 1% increase in the sales tax earlier in the 2008 Session. It will be on the November ballot for the voter's to decide.

The ultimate consequence is merely a tax increase through the constitutional amendment process. I have been a hunter, fisherman and outdoorsman all my life but I do not and will not vote for this Amendment. I am an outdoors guy, and I already pay everytime I buy a license, or a state park pass, or license plates. If passed, this will raise the state's 6.5 percent sales tax to 6.875 percent in most areas of the state but those whose county has already voted to increase the sales tax for transportation will see it raise from 6.5 to 7.375. That will put Minnesota at the highest in sales taxes in the entire country.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html

This amendment needs to be voted down as it is inappropriate to make funding decisions through the constitutional amendment process. It allows legislators to avoid making the tough decision of raising taxes.

Voters with already-strapped household finances should not be asked to support a sales tax increase to find more money out of their budget to subsidize arts programs, and trails and zoos?

I think the most problematic element is arts funding via the government. I think there's a legitimate role for the government to play in protecting the environment but should government bureaucrats be deciding what art receives taxpayer dollars. ut I do not support the Amendment for any of the provisions. let's not forget that the bonding bill had money in it for many of these same initiatives already.

In time of economic slowdown, when taxpayers are losing their jobs, losing their homes and their checkbook is already at the breaking point; people are less willing to vote themselves a tax increase. Under Minnesota's constitutional amendment process, a majority of all votes cast in the general election must be in favor of the amendment not just those cast on the amendment. Often many people don't vote on constitutional amendments; they leave it blank. Those non-votes are treated as no votes. Meaning? For an amendment to pass will require approximately 55% support. That won't be easy for a significant tax increase and the broad reach of the amendment.

But look what our liberal friends over at the Star Tribune have did back in February:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/15634197.html

They left the other things like Arts out of the headlines to deceptively get people to think this is all about the enviroment. I suspect that more of this will be done to try and get the amendment passed. Don't be fooled!!! VOTE NO! Simply put this is not good tax policy, it's not good budgeting policy!!!

While amenities are nice there is a limit that taxpayers will pay to fund such amenities and cities, schools, and other taxing entities of the government need to wake up. People are losing their jobs, their homes and sometimes their willingness to live in communities that are not responsive to their needs. Taxpayer and Family checkbooks are at their breaking point and government whether at the local, state and federal level just do not understand that and are willing to push past the point of harming families.

Take a look at the brochure the city put together and paid for to try and get the referendum passed:

http://ci.rosemount.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B9EB5E841-C29C-4154-8A28-AC41E049797A%7D/uploads/%7B70EA1A44-61A7-468A-81BD-F0953B57C0C9%7D.PDF

Are ball fields nice? Yes. But a core priority or essential service they are not. Is an Arts Center nice? Again it is yes but this is not an essential service of government. That is where government has failed the people – by overstating the wants and wishes of some as the need by all.

Fire and police are core essential services and are often the first to be mentioned for cuts when budgets become strained. Why? Because they are the most visual core essential services and can be used to justify raising taxes further because the budget is to the bare bones. But most often the government budget is not as dire as stated and officials are using emotions to get its citizenry to become sympathetic with its plight.

It was not long ago that churches, groups, associations …etc came together to provide opportunities for ball fields, art centers, activities which the government now seems to think is their responsibility. Now it is all about being bigger, better and much more grandiose than the next community. We as taxpayers have been lulled to sleep and these votes are just a start of your role in defining what you believe to be essential government services versus those that are wants and wishes that should only be facilitated but not funded by public tax dollars

Governor Pawlenty today announced the signing of the Capital Investment Bill, with a number of line-item vetoes. Governor Pawlenty's line item-vetoes reduce the overall amount of the general obligation bonding bill from $925 million to $717 million.  This is a win for Conservatives and Minnesota taxpayers by reducing the bill it reflects Governor Pawlenty's commitment to fiscal discipline and desire to prioritize important state projects.

Of course you already have finger pointing and name calling by the DFL calling it personal.  The DFL never for a minute thought it was personal by taking on billions to Minnesota taxpayers earlier on in session with the transit bill aka transportation bill which lacked anything but tax increases.

Read the line item veto and the Governors veto letters here:

http://www.governor.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/web_content/prod008798.pdf

http://www.governor.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/web_content/prod008799.pdf

On the eve of the Tax Cut Rally this Saturday at the Capitol this is the first real sign of fending off the tax and spend mentality that has returned at the Capitol.  Thank you Governor Pawlenty and the House Republicans for standing tall for Minnesota Families and Taxpayers.