DFLers say their proposed tax plan would provide the resources to make needed investments. Republicans say those funds aren’t resources — they’re taxes. And the money isn’t an investment — it’s just more government spending.
Republicans in Minnesota often focus on the state’s high taxes, while DFLers focus on all the services the state delivers for that money — a divergence was put on display at the Minnesota Capitol this week.
The disconnect at the Capitol is not so much about political philosophy, but over what even constitutes compromise these days — what “halfway” looks like.
In shaping their plans, DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican leaders have applied their own political philosophies on who should pay more or less, resulting in dramatically different proposals.
This session of the Minnesota Legislature has already been one of the busiest in recent memory, with a flurry of bills on several high-profile — and unexpected — issues taking center stage.
Dayton’s budget and taxes proposal is the opening pitch of the legislative session.
Doing nothing could result in a very complicated tax season next year. But simply conforming the state’s code to that of the feds could mean big tax increase for many Minnesotans.
The tax bill lawmakers are voting on this week will contain not a cut, but a cap of the state and local tax deduction.
Policies that lower taxes on the wealthy, on the other hand, would have the opposite effect and significantly increase the numbers of deaths in the U.S. each year, the study found.
One expert estimates that eliminating the state and local tax deduction could pay for 15 to 25 percent of the GOP’s entire tax plan.
The so-called “border adjusted tax” overhauls the way U.S. companies pay taxes by easing the tax burden on exports while making companies pay up for imports.
Minnesota’s slower growth has an explanation in economic theory — and it’s got nothing to do with taxes or regulation.
Taxes, lawsuits and a guessing game over his ultimate worth are just part of the drama to come as experts unravel Prince’s financial legacy.
Under the 1971 Fiscal Disparities Act, the Twin Cities region shared $594 million in tax revenue among nearly 200 taxing entities in 2015.
The cuts would crowd out more important priorities, provide large tax cuts to only a small number of Minnesota estates, and create uneven tax treatment among Minnesota taxpayers.
Not only do the cuts exceed the current surplus: they also grow over time.
In 2015 the Legislature should not undo the progress made over the last two years by backsliding toward increased regressivity.
There is a substantial number of bills moving in the Legislature that would cut taxes just for those with the highest incomes.
We pay sales taxes on windshield wiper fluid, oil, tires, parts, and other necessities to keep our cars moving. Cars and gas shouldn’t be any different.
Minnesota’s 2013 cigarette tax increases were an attempt to accomplish two policy goals seemingly at odds with each other: reduce cigarette consumption and get more general fund revenue in the process. How is that working out?