[Speed Gibson,
Friday May 13, 2005 at 2:17am]
Oh, it's only temporary!
Did you notice this so-interesting sentence from my State Senator in the previous post?
"As soon as the economy improves ..."
To whose standard? To what level? Tax receipts are up big already this year. Aren't we there yet?
Whatever the state of our economy, it will be worse as a result of the "temporary" tax on our "highest income" earners. The money they would have spent and invested in many productive ways will now produce nothing. That's harsh I know, but the record of the last three decades here and across the country is that injecting more money into the public schools produces no corresponding increase in the quality or quantity of education produced. If anything, there is a negative correlation.
"... this temporary tax will automatically disappear."
If it only affects 42,500 taxpayers, what's the hurry? But of course it does affect us all. That room addition gets put off, the new car can wait, and the bank now refuses to help expand that small business because the after-tax return on investment is now too small. Remember the "luxury tax" out east that was hurriedly repealed when many "non-rich" people that depended on the "rich" began losing their jobs?
But how can this "temporary" tax just disappear? What will replace this income? The public schools will not happily agree to even inflation-adjusted increases after this biennium; they never have before.
Obviously, the overall plan is to raise taxes overall. Governor Pawlenty won't bite on this, of course, even if the House would. So for now, use good old class envy to raise money with this tax, calling it temporary to convince the "rich" not to move. Use that money to ratchet up the spending. The "temporary" tax then expires (assuming the economy improves, remember?).
What then, in 2007? Public schools are now spending at record levels and demanding significantly more as usual. With the "budgeting gimmicks" removed, what choice is left but raise taxes on everyone? Like extending the sales tax to clothing as the Minneapolis Star Tribune keeps recommending?
Of course, even this narrow, temporary tax is unlikely to pass this year, leaving the DFL with what they think will be a good campaign issue in 2006 to retake the House and Governor's mansion. If they're correct, then spending explodes in 2007, right on schedule.
It's a great plan, politically. Too bad it does absolutely nothing for our children.
As soon as the economy improves and we fix the budget gimmicks, this temporary increase will automatically disappear.
"As soon as the economy improves ..."
To whose standard? To what level? Tax receipts are up big already this year. Aren't we there yet?
Whatever the state of our economy, it will be worse as a result of the "temporary" tax on our "highest income" earners. The money they would have spent and invested in many productive ways will now produce nothing. That's harsh I know, but the record of the last three decades here and across the country is that injecting more money into the public schools produces no corresponding increase in the quality or quantity of education produced. If anything, there is a negative correlation.
"... this temporary tax will automatically disappear."
If it only affects 42,500 taxpayers, what's the hurry? But of course it does affect us all. That room addition gets put off, the new car can wait, and the bank now refuses to help expand that small business because the after-tax return on investment is now too small. Remember the "luxury tax" out east that was hurriedly repealed when many "non-rich" people that depended on the "rich" began losing their jobs?
But how can this "temporary" tax just disappear? What will replace this income? The public schools will not happily agree to even inflation-adjusted increases after this biennium; they never have before.
Obviously, the overall plan is to raise taxes overall. Governor Pawlenty won't bite on this, of course, even if the House would. So for now, use good old class envy to raise money with this tax, calling it temporary to convince the "rich" not to move. Use that money to ratchet up the spending. The "temporary" tax then expires (assuming the economy improves, remember?).
What then, in 2007? Public schools are now spending at record levels and demanding significantly more as usual. With the "budgeting gimmicks" removed, what choice is left but raise taxes on everyone? Like extending the sales tax to clothing as the Minneapolis Star Tribune keeps recommending?
Of course, even this narrow, temporary tax is unlikely to pass this year, leaving the DFL with what they think will be a good campaign issue in 2006 to retake the House and Governor's mansion. If they're correct, then spending explodes in 2007, right on schedule.
It's a great plan, politically. Too bad it does absolutely nothing for our children.