Thank you governor

Didn’t even need BH to start this one.

Quote:

---

Didn’t even need BH to start this one.

---

I heard he is down at the DOME, for the roof raising…

G,

You are confusing millionaires with people who earn a million in a year. You can earn a million a year and be broke after paying taxes. Someone who wins the lottery in Mn for 10 million pays tax the one year they cash the prize. Then they are basically unemployed for the rest of their life. Those people do not fall into the 2% of wage earners the tax increase is targeting.

-J.

Quote:

---

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES

---

How will it help the economy?

Now JJ…. that’s quite the spin (rush would be proud ) but I am not talking about only people who won the lottery, making them millionaires (I know 2 personally)… It is true I am confused, but only because they have so many loopholes and tax shelters, you can’t possibly know what someone making over $1M a year, is truely paying. Nobody knows, but Dayton knows it’s not enough

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES

---

How will it help the economy?

---

If a budget is reached, it will. If you think having a state shutdown is not hurting MN’s economy, then there is no hope for you.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES

---

How will it help the economy?

---

If a budget is reached, it will. If you think having a state shutdown is not hurting MN’s economy, then there is no hope for you.

---

By that logic, passing the budget(s) presented by the House that do not include tax hikes would also improve the economy.

I guess there is hope for me after all.

Quote:

---

I did read it… and this line, over & over, in some form or another, is used the most… & continues to mean absolutely nothing to me.

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES(BTW, it’s only the top 2%, not the top 5%, which including them, can only help the msg they are spewing). This is a great sound bite… this “sounds” like alot of money… but what “%” of real earnings (including the ones slipping through the tax shelters and loopholes) does a millionaire pay ? Is it 10%, is it 6% or something less than that ??? That’s what I want to know… and they don’t want me too..

---

You really don’t understand I don’t think. Dayton not only wants to raise taxes on the rich, he wants to SPEND MORE also. This is complete and utter BS. Cut back like the rest of us have. The world can only live on credit cards for so long.

Here’s a compromise. Tax the rich. Personally I don’t give a snort, but I would make it a year to year decision based on tax revenues retained.
If you then are gaining tax revenue and not seeing job #’s hurt, etc., then use that money to pay off debt, not create more programs. Start with the 6% increase the R’s are calling for, then slowly cut it down until you are decreasing rather than increasing government.

Don’t tax more so that you can spend more. Tax more to get out of a hole, then cutback responsibly. You know, just like the rest of the citizens in the US have had to do since the recession hit.

MN is an “Entitlement State.” Isn’t it true that the lowest 25% pay no tax at all, but receive in some cases $5k back in taxes when they paid none? I choked when I had to write the check to MN and the IRS this year knowing I did taxes for some people this year that got at least $5k back!!!

If you are going to give it away that easily, of course you will go broke! And with the economy as it is right now, there are MANY more people qualifying for all that “Free” money!!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES

---

How will it help the economy?

---

If a budget is reached, it will. If you think having a state shutdown is not hurting MN’s economy, then there is no hope for you.

---

By that logic, passing the budget(s) presented by the House that do not include tax hikes would also improve the economy.

I guess there is hope for me after all.

---

Yes, your getting it now. Without a budget (any budget) the economy will just keep getting worse. That’s what made that question in that article so dumb to begin with ????

My sister in law doesn’t pay a dime in and gets back like 9000 dollars in tax refunds from the government each year. Love her and all, this is BS in its highest form.

MN is an “Entitlement State.” Isn’t it true that the lowest 25% pay no tax at all, but receive in some cases $5k back in taxes when they paid none?

From what I have seen that is correct Chris. Its very easy to be poor in MN.

If that money had to come out of the Dayton Family Trust I wonder how fast it would change? Just sayin’….

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I did read it… and this line, over & over, in some form or another, is used the most… & continues to mean absolutely nothing to me.

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES(BTW, it’s only the top 2%, not the top 5%, which including them, can only help the msg they are spewing). This is a great sound bite… this “sounds” like alot of money… but what “%” of real earnings (including the ones slipping through the tax shelters and loopholes) does a millionaire pay ? Is it 10%, is it 6% or something less than that ??? That’s what I want to know… and they don’t want me too..

---

You really don’t understand I don’t think. Dayton not only wants to raise taxes on the rich, he wants to SPEND MORE also. This is complete and utter BS. Cut back like the rest of us have. The world can only live on credit cards for so long.

Here’s a compromise. Tax the rich. Personally I don’t give a snort, but I would make it a year to year decision based on tax revenues retained.
If you then are gaining tax revenue and not seeing job #’s hurt, etc., then use that money to pay off debt, not create more programs. Start with the 6% increase the R’s are calling for, then slowly cut it down until you are decreasing rather than increasing government.

Don’t tax more so that you can spend more. Tax more to get out of a hole, then cutback responsibly. You know, just like the rest of the citizens in the US have had to do since the recession hit.

---

Please point out to me, where I said I agree with everything Dayton is proposing ? Do I agree with the top 2% paying their fair share… yes. Do I agree with cutting spending…yes. I stand firmly in the middle. If I hear Rush, I change the station… if I hear Ed Schultz, I turn the station. I understand plenty, I have exactly $0 on any credit card in my household. Maybe we need a common sense party

The obvious answer is to minimize social and entitlement programs. Mn is among the top of the nation in welfare recipients, and the amount spent.

The “top 2%” needs to be left alone. My understanding is that the upper 2% is already paying 90% of our tax revenue as it is. You wanna urine em off and raise their taxes even more, then they will move their businesses and residences, leaving us with less tax income. Friggin socialists need to learn to leave other peoples money alone.

I certainly am not in that upper 2%, but its only common sense that tells me raising their taxes is a horrible idea. However, common sense is soon to join the endangered species list.

Seems like we are spending more time trying to solve the government shut down than the people actually elected.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I did read it… and this line, over & over, in some form or another, is used the most… & continues to mean absolutely nothing to me.

Currently the top 5% of wage earners in Minnesota pay 43% of Minnesota’s income taxes. Will taxing these job creators that already are responsible for contributing almost half of the state’s budget help Minnesota’s economy?

The short answer is….YES(BTW, it’s only the top 2%, not the top 5%, which including them, can only help the msg they are spewing). This is a great sound bite… this “sounds” like alot of money… but what “%” of real earnings (including the ones slipping through the tax shelters and loopholes) does a millionaire pay ? Is it 10%, is it 6% or something less than that ??? That’s what I want to know… and they don’t want me too..

---

You really don’t understand I don’t think. Dayton not only wants to raise taxes on the rich, he wants to SPEND MORE also. This is complete and utter BS. Cut back like the rest of us have. The world can only live on credit cards for so long.

Here’s a compromise. Tax the rich. Personally I don’t give a snort, but I would make it a year to year decision based on tax revenues retained.
If you then are gaining tax revenue and not seeing job #’s hurt, etc., then use that money to pay off debt, not create more programs. Start with the 6% increase the R’s are calling for, then slowly cut it down until you are decreasing rather than increasing government.

Don’t tax more so that you can spend more. Tax more to get out of a hole, then cutback responsibly. You know, just like the rest of the citizens in the US have had to do since the recession hit.

---

Please point out to me, where I said I agree with everything Dayton is proposing ? Do I agree with the top 2% paying their fair share… yes. Do I agree with cutting spending…yes. I stand firmly in the middle. If I hear Rush, I change the station… if I hear Ed Schultz, I turn the station. I understand plenty, I have exactly $0 on any credit card in my household. Maybe we need a common sense party

---

I am right with you. Each side is for themselves and the high dollar entity that feeds the campaigns. Neither are for the people.

I’ve tried to stay away but I can only read the “fair share” argument so many times before I need to ask. I have heard from many friends, family, and some IDO’ers that they need to pay their fair share. So my question is, what is their fair share? And how much is “enough money” where you can say a person shouldn’t need anymore?
I have asked this question many times and nobody has ever given me a response with reason. What made/makes this country great is that you can dream and can become a multi-millionaire. Do you need every penny of that? No, but who am I to ever tell anybody else what is enough.
For reference, according to the IRS SOI for 2008 (they always lag 2 years), the top 1% of wage earner’s AGI(Adjusted Gross Income) had a floor at $380,354, the top 5% had an AGI of $159,619. Are those more than I make? Absolutely! Do I consider that uber wealthy and multi-millianaire? I can’t by definition. So before you start commenting on the millionaire top 2%, you should check the facts and see what that top 2% translates to for annual earnings.
As mentioned also, the top 5% of wage earners make a combined 34.7% of the total AGI and already pay 59% of all of the tax revenue (on a federal level). So how can the lower 50% which pay a total of 2.7% of the taxes complain about the top 2% not paying their share? You want the majority of people to start realizing what a lot of these inefficient programs cost, then maybe we should start charging the majority a little more taxes and they can “get some skin in the game” – To quote Barry O

The moral of the story is, if you don’t have the money, you can’t spend it. And if people want to keep their beloved programs, then those need to be funded by those who find them so near and dear, not the people who are already paying more than their “fair share”.

Quote:

---

Seems like we are spending more time trying to solve the government shut down than the people actually elected.

---

That’s because we don’t have any fatcats, minorities or friggen welfare junkies to impress so we can be elected the next go’round.
I really do believe these politicians have to know better and the way it SHOULD be. Problem is they are too busy trying to please the hand that feeds them all the time and commone sense gets thrown out the window.

My definition of “fair share”

Taxpayer A takes home $50,000 a year. For easy numbers, lets say the state tax rate is 10%, he should then pay $5000 in taxes.

Taxpayer B takes home $1,000,000 a year. He should be paying $100,000 in taxes.

No loopholes or shelters for either

Now here’s the shocker for you… Taxpayer B pays 95% of the state tax collected overall !!! Quite a shock to me

I usually default to data…

Top 1% average rate = 23.27. This is amount paid after all of the loopholes and what not. They make $100,000, they pay 23,270 (as mentioned above, their income is over 100,000, i just used for easy math.)

Now, top 50% rate = 13.65%. I don’t have data for bottom 50%, but it would be much lower than 13.65 due to our marginal tax system. So, make 100,000, pay only 13,650. Again, these are averages but it shows that the more you make, the more you pay both dollar and % wise.

What you are calling for is a flat tax system which all Democrats including Dayton would be against. But, if you truly want it, then starting suggesting that the rich get taxed less and the poor get taxed more.

So again, I ask, what is fair?

What I said is “fair share” is what I believe, nothing changed ? Make nothing, pay nothing, get nothing… I don’t buy the “after loopholes” comment BTW… and why are they using the top 1% for reference now ??? What is it for the top 2% ??? Again, they use funny/different numbers ??? Let’s not forget about all the “diverted funds” that some how end up as an income of sorts.

I still think Jessies idea of a “sales” tax only, would work wonders. If you spend money , you pay taxes. If you save money, you die with it and your kids spend it… if you make no money, you can’t buy anything, you pay no taxes…. and so on…

Quote:

---

I usually default to data…
Top 1% average rate = 23.27. This is amount paid after all of the loopholes and what not. They make $100,000, they pay 23,270 (as mentioned above, their income is over 100,000, i just used for easy math.)
Now, top 50% rate = 13.65%. I don’t have data for bottom 50%, but it would be much lower than 13.65 due to our marginal tax system. So, make 100,000, pay only 13,650. Again, these are averages but it shows that the more you make, the more you pay both dollar and % wise.

What you are calling for is a flat tax system which all Democrats including Dayton would be against. But, if you truly want it, then starting suggesting that the rich get taxed less and the poor get taxed more.

So again, I ask, what is fair?

---

Apples and oranges. Of the top 50%, few make $100k.

I’m bad with math, but here’s my analysis. Basic needs (defined however each person wants), cost a certain amount of money. $100k allows more “disposable income” (again, define however you want) than <$100k.

Joel

Quote:

---

Now if the government wants more revenue, all they have to do is create a better economy.

---

Sounds kind of democratic

Okay, so if you want your definition of fair share, then you need to be asking for a tax break for the rich and a tax increase for the poor which is fine just so long as it’s consistent.

I just caught your 95% of tax comment. Disregarding the inaccurate math, the thing is, the people paying “95%” of the taxes are also making “95%” of the money which, as I explained, is not what is actually happening.

I only used the 1% since that is what the IRS reports. I do not have 2% break down. The idea is the same, rich pay a larger percentage of their money towards taxes than the poor with flies in the face of your “fair share” idea. I actually wouldn’t mind a flat tax system, but again, that would mean cuts at the top and add-ons at the bottom as opposed to making the rich pay more.

As for the sales tax only, I am not sure punishing those who are willing to spend money to buy goods is the answer. It’s a quick way to make the economy stagnant. In order for businesses to operate, they need to move as many goods/services as possible and hindering those exchanges with larger sales tax isn’t really the answer.

For the record, I don’t mind our current tax system, but then again my problem lies in the expense side of the equation not the revenue. If we don’t cut expenses, then whatever revenue we increase will just be alotted to a new expense that is dreamed up and our deficit will never go down.

Quote:

---

I’m bad with math, but here’s my analysis. Basic needs (defined however each person wants), cost a certain amount of money. $100k allows more “disposable income” (again, define however you want) than <$100k.

---

…and giving money to the government is definitely disposing of it!

Buddump bump pshhhh (My attempt at a rimshot)

Apples and oranges. Of the top 50%, few make $100k.

I’m bad with math, but here’s my analysis. Basic needs (defined however each person wants), cost a certain amount of money. $100k allows more “disposable income” (again, define however you want) than <$100k.

Joel

Those were used for easy math. $100k income puts you around the top 11% of earners. So yes, there is not a large share, that was just for easy math. The percent difference remains the same.

If you want an idea of how to do it “Right” look at how Texas and Ohio and South Dakota do it. There are more, but they are business friendly and do not lay the tax smackdown on their people or businesses. That makes for more jobs, and by default will lower the Welfare roles and the darned expensive entitlements that go along with them. It is simple and effective. You don’t have to be a Republican or Democrat to be onboard with that.

---

…and giving money to the government is definitely disposing of it!

---

Now, that’s funny raught thar
I doan care who y’are, that’s some funny stuff raught thar