Categories

This MinnPost article doesn’t inspire confidence that Speaker Thissen’s ‘temporary’ income tax surcharge will be that temporary. This is the part that caught my attention:

“I think the key [to making a tax temporary] is the Legislature has to take responsibility for enacting any kind of a surtax and making sure there’s a workable blink-on or blink-off, or remove it when they don’t need it anymore.”

That’s frightening. When has the DFL ever found that they couldn’t find something else to spend the revenues on? It isn’t a matter of the DFL not needing the revenue. It’s a matter of the DFL finding another political ally to pay off with the revenues.

With the DFL addicted to spending other people’s money, there’s no reason to think that they won’t find other ‘investments’ worthy of supporting. It’s like the moth-flame thing. The moth DFL can’t help themselves. Their addiction is just too powerful.

When you consider the fact that Rep. Winkler proposed spending $800,000 to keep the U of M-UND hockey rivalry going, the likelihood of the DFL exercising fiscal restraint doesn’t seem that strong. If you consider the fact that the DFL wants to spend 11% more on this budget than the biggest budget in state history, the odds that the DFL will exercise anything resembling fiscal restraint are steep, if not prohibitive.

Even if the Thissen income tax surcharge legislation includes a sunset date, that doesn’t guarantee that the surcharge will be temporary. It would only take a majority vote in the House and Senate, then Gov. Dayton’s signature. Picturing DFL legislators voting for a tax increase isn’t difficult. Picturing Gov. Dayton signing another tax increase isn’t difficult, either.

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Thissen’s temporary tax increase: how temporary is it?”

  • Speed Gibson says:

    It never was about fairness. They want to spend more and how much is determining whether the top 1 or 2 or 3 percent get hit. (Directly. We all get hit indirectly.) 3% probably didn’t poll well, given all the 2% postulating they did. A higher rate on 2% takes MN to #1 in country. OK, so let’s lay off some of it on insurance fees (pensions). And we’ll stiff the schools another 4 years. Metro taxes for transit but of course, Mpls/St. Paul will get secret new funding to offset it. And we’ll promise the surcharge is only temporary, thinking the targeted will believe them and therefore won’t move themselves or their businesses. When you look at what the money’s for, this is some of the most raw, dirty public greed and graft in MN history.

  • Gary Gross says:

    That’s exactly right, Rex. You’ve totally nailed it.

  • Chad Q says:

    While I’m not in the top tax bracket yet, I’m not waiting around to become the next part of the “rich” the DFL wants to tax so I will be moving out of MN in the near future. If people like me are moving out of the state, just think about all the people in the top tax bracket that will move to avoid paying a permanent higher tax along with this so called temporary surcharge. The so called better quality of life that higher taxes are supposed to bring is not worth it and even rich liberals will be moving to other parts of the country to avoid it.

Leave a Reply