Pawlenty picks panel to study taxes

There are really 2 ways that government can influence the economy. One is via taxes. Taking money out of the pockets of consumers (taxes) means less spending and less jobs. The only reason that government needs to raise taxes is to take on more pork projects (LTR).

The other method is via the Federal Reserve system where it indirectly influences the Federal funds rate. They do this by buying (reducing the money supply) goverment securities and selling (increasing the money supply) government securities.

We need to stop all these handouts and subsidies. Note that both parties are guilty of this but more so on the DFL side. By putting more money in the pockets of the people this will increase jobs and make Minnesota strong. Why do you think all the "tax havens" are thriving. Ireland is a perfect example of this. They lowered their capital gains tax in the 90's. They went from being poor to the model economy of Europe. If minnesota could set a similar standard here in the US the jobs would come back an instant. I know I have lived in a tax haven and it is amazing. So all of you think that businesses need to be taxed into oblivion are only hurting yourself and making the corrupt politicians of MN richer.

Libertarian wrote:

There are really 2 ways that government can influence the economy. One is via taxes. Taking money out of the pockets of consumers (taxes) means less spending and less jobs. The only reason that government needs to raise taxes is to take on more pork projects (LTR).
The other method is via the Federal Reserve system where it indirectly influences the Federal funds rate. They do this by buying (reducing the money supply) goverment securities and selling (increasing the money supply) government securities.
We need to stop all these handouts and subsidies. Note that both parties are guilty of this but more so on the DFL side. By putting more money in the pockets of the people this will increase jobs and make Minnesota strong. Why do you think all the "tax havens" are thriving. Ireland is a perfect example of this. They lowered their capital gains tax in the 90's. They went from being poor to the model economy of Europe. If minnesota could set a similar standard here in the US the jobs would come back an instant. I know I have lived in a tax haven and it is amazing. So all of you think that businesses need to be taxed into oblivion are only hurting yourself and making the corrupt politicians of MN richer.

Although this is an obvious truth, don't expect to ever get the libs to accept it. They know full well it's true, but they have a utopian society that they are bent on attempting to create.

It's well known that the DFL party in Minnesota had communist ties back 60 years ago. The local DFL'ers are a particularly aggressive liberal bunch that is interested in a socialist society. Because that concept is considered unamerican in the mainstream, they simply pursue the concepts and attempt to sell them with heart string pulls and by playing on the fears and hopes of the poor. It's for the kids.... The evil corporations..... The wealthy can afford to....... for the kids sake. We've all heard it.

At the core, they simply want a socialist society and are resorting to tactical strategies and slow change to accomplish their goals.

The scary part is that they've made alot of headway of the last 20 years.

Myself wrote:

<quoted text>
Although this is an obvious truth, don't expect to ever get the libs to accept it. They know full well it's true, but they have a utopian society that they are bent on attempting to create.
It's well known that the DFL party in Minnesota had communist ties back 60 years ago. The local DFL'ers are a particularly aggressive liberal bunch that is interested in a socialist society. Because that concept is considered unamerican in the mainstream, they simply pursue the concepts and attempt to sell them with heart string pulls and by playing on the fears and hopes of the poor. It's for the kids.... The evil corporations..... The wealthy can afford to....... for the kids sake. We've all heard it.
At the core, they simply want a socialist society and are resorting to tactical strategies and slow change to accomplish their goals.
The scary part is that they've made alot of headway of the last 20 years.

Not sure it all that obvious because a lot of people buy into the philosophy. But blame does lie on both sides of the spectrum. Special tax grants on the right for certain segments of business is not right either. If everything is to be fair a LOW (and that is the key is LOW) flat tax should be implemented. This way hours of trying to figure out how much you owe or are owed is easy. This would eliminate government bloat like MN revenue and IRS. This would also eliminate all the industries based on the complications of the tax code (lawyers and accountants). These people would be free to contribute more toward building capital for themselves and Minnesota rather than supporting bureaucracy .

Libertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure it all that obvious because a lot of people buy into the philosophy. But blame does lie on both sides of the spectrum. Special tax grants on the right for certain segments of business is not right either. If everything is to be fair a LOW (and that is the key is LOW) flat tax should be implemented. This way hours of trying to figure out how much you owe or are owed is easy. This would eliminate government bloat like MN revenue and IRS. This would also eliminate all the industries based on the complications of the tax code (lawyers and accountants). These people would be free to contribute more toward building capital for themselves and Minnesota rather than supporting bureaucracy .

I agree with you completely. The problem that I see is that it's really a spending issue that has created the tax issue vs the other way around. In other words, our taxes wouldn't be so high if spending wasn't so high. Further the "Tax Grants" that you refer to are also a function of our high (and progressive) tax structure. If taxes weren't so high and so disporportiantely levied against high earners and business, there would be no need for special tax grants to ease that burden.

So basically, the foundation of the problem is spending in my humble opinion. Both sides do play a part in the spending issue, however, the DFL is clearly the front runner of that endeavor. Consider that the largest portion of the federal budget is tied up by HHS and education. If you removed those from the budget at both the state and federal level and delegated education funding locally (as it used to be), the problem is solved.

Although that would never happen for obvious reasons, it demonstrates my point.

You can have a flat tax, progressive, regressive whatever kind of a system you want. If you don't change spending, your simply shifting the burden around and you haven't fixed the problem at all.

Note to panel. We are in the top 10 states in taxes. Don't fall for the percent of income BS. The state budget has almost doubled since 2000. Where's the money going?

Myself wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you completely. The problem that I see is that it's really a spending issue that has created the tax issue vs the other way around. In other words, our taxes wouldn't be so high if spending wasn't so high. Further the "Tax Grants" that you refer to are also a function of our high (and progressive) tax structure. If taxes weren't so high and so disporportiantely levied against high earners and business, there would be no need for special tax grants to ease that burden.
So basically, the foundation of the problem is spending in my humble opinion. Both sides do play a part in the spending issue, however, the DFL is clearly the front runner of that endeavor. Consider that the largest portion of the federal budget is tied up by HHS and education. If you removed those from the budget at both the state and federal level and delegated education funding locally (as it used to be), the problem is solved.
Although that would never happen for obvious reasons, it demonstrates my point.
You can have a flat tax, progressive, regressive whatever kind of a system you want. If you don't change spending, your simply shifting the burden around and you haven't fixed the problem at all.

I agree completely also. I think my previous post eluded to the spending issue. I was trying to address the issue on the other side also. I think overall you and I are in agreement .

Mary wrote:

What a scam! They will most likely decide that buisness should pay nothing. The rich should pay nothing and that earnings for the poor and middle class should be taxed at 40% or more because of the economic tricle down effect we will all be flush with cash. I say tax the rich people who make more than $50000 at 50% or higher and tax buisness profit at 50% and give the money to us middle class and poor people who soon will have our homes forclosed on and be eating cat food for diner. Cost of food are up 40%, cost of mortgages is up, cost of health goes up 20%+ each year. The rich are trying to starve us and make us die! Its time for a revolution!!!

Mary, it appears that you may have already eaten too much cat food!

Myself wrote:

<quoted text>
Such prattle. The sky was blue during the Clinton adminstration as well, would you like to credit him with that as well?
Yeah, Clinton was soley responsible for the prosperity of the 90's. He was soley responsible for inventing the internet (oops, that was his VP wasn't it?) that spurred the dot com era (that consiquently burst the country into recession in the last year of his term).
Oh yeah, I forgot. Clinton was also soley responsible for the 85% appreciation rate in the housing market between 1994 and 2002 (which also consequently burst in 2006 causing our current economic crisis).
Little minds that can't associate economic trends with an appropriate market source or policy implementation always seem to spout of completely inaccurate and completely uninformed comments. They really serve to do nothing other than expose themselves as the ignorant souls that they are who desparately rationalize their political ties when it's quite obvious that they are selfishly motivated and not in the least bit honorable or geniune.
More crudley put, shut your pie hole dunce.

My experience has taught me that calling names is the hallmark of a little mind. My point was simple: conservatives like to assert that any tax increase has a negative effect on the economy and jobs. There is no data that supports such a statement. The rest of your emotionally unstable post is extra-textual garbage. Emotional intelligence tip of the day: just because people may disagree with you doesn't mean that they are dishonorable or disingenuous.

GBS-StPaul wrote:

I personally think that all forms of welfare (business subsidies, farm subsidies, personal welfare, socialized health care, and legislator pork barrel projects) should be eliminated. Everyone would probably pay 50% less in taxes by just getting rid of all the garbage. We do not need more tax money; we need legislators that believe in the constitution and the declaration of independence. We need leaders who will stop wasteful spending and give back the freedoms they have taken from us along the way.

Seriously? Wow, what 9th grade social economics book did you steal that crap from. I would say to you "Stay in School!", but I think it would be a waste of hard earn tax dollars....

What I find amazing (and utterly disgusting) is this: "...five of the members gave a combined $6,750 to Pawlenty's gubernatorial campaigns since 2002.."

Not 6Mil, not 600K, not 60K, but a COMBINED $6,750! Are you kidding? I mean these guys must have had to take out second mortages out on their mansions!

Like Pawlenty, I'm easy...but I'm not THAT cheap!

Wow! Business people...that's about a toothpick widths better than government employees. Why not an equal mix of business and common folk? If they're BIG business people, they're usually already Dems. WHO KNOWS how this'll turn out?

This commission is past due. I hope Governor Pawlenty had the foresight to appoint some dems after all not all businessmen are repubs. I hope this group not only examines the tax structure in Minnesota but the use it or lose it mentality within state government. We need to examine the unemployment structure of our "seasonal" construction crew and the costs of road building.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
My experience has taught me that calling names is the hallmark of a little mind. My point was simple: conservatives like to assert that any tax increase has a negative effect on the economy and jobs. There is no data that supports such a statement. The rest of your emotionally unstable post is extra-textual garbage. Emotional intelligence tip of the day: just because people may disagree with you doesn't mean that they are dishonorable or disingenuous.

Cute. How do you respond with having a ridiculously uninformed comment called out.

Take the high road, of course.

Care to dispute the assertion (amongst the satire) that Clinton had no more to do with Balancing the Budget than did GWB in creating our current deficit.

I'm sure that you'll find it more convenient to snub me as I've offended you.

And I have a small mind. Amazing. Truly amazing.