Be Thankful, Peasants

Two billion in new taxes.

A 1.2 billion dollar surplus (thanks, GOP majority from 2011-2012!), which means “unexpected” money collected in taxes, and is money that is lost from the economy.

That’s a total of $3.2 billion extra dollars sucked out of the Minnesota economy – about $600 for every man, woman and child in the state, or close to $1,000 for every taxpayer.

And we’re supposed to be thankful that the DFL majority deigns to “give” us $550 million “back”.

That’s about 17 cents on the dollar.

If you gave your cashier a $20 bill for a $15 meal, and you got 85 cents in change, I’m going to guess you wouldn’t be “thankful”…

Posted

May 9, 2014

Dayton Dustbowl, Minnesota Politics, MN Legislature

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

19 responses to “Be Thankful, Peasants”

justplainangry

May 9, 2014

Buying eggs for 3c, selling them for 2c and making a 1c profit. That’s what libturds learned from Milo.
The Big Stink

May 9, 2014

It’s casino logic. They’ll let you win a hand or two, but the object is to make you drive home wondering what happened.
bikebubba

May 9, 2014

But it’s so cool–my town has a CONCRETE welcome sign instead of the old metal one. Because no one would know they were in my town if they hadn’t replaced the $100 (and easily readable) metal sign with an unreadable concrete block for ten grand.

That, and the water park for two million bucks…..which is going to lose money forever….and the municipal liquor store…..which generates about the same “profit” as an ordinary store would return in property taxes…..and the municipal utilities…..which as far as I can tell COST the taxpayers money…..but at least there are no evil profits going on there!
Chuck

May 9, 2014

But now if you want a state contract, you have to certify that the average pay of your female employees is at least as much as your male employees (not sure how the other genders fit in). Do you think the gov’t will review performance reviews to see if any pay differences are justified?
Dog Gone

May 9, 2014

“That’s a total of $3.2 billion extra dollars sucked out of the Minnesota economy – about $600 for every man, woman and child in the state, or close to $1,000 for every taxpayer.”

Factually inaccurate, wrong again. We know that money spent by the state after it collects the revenue is an economic multiplier, not ‘sucking dollars out of the economy”, and that conversely, tax cuts do not result in economic growth.

The perfect example is poor shit-hole conservative tax cutting Kansas with crappy stats, compared to liberal successful Minnesota.

The reason is that Minnesota is putting that tax money into areas that create a better state for economic growth. Conservative political and economic ideology is an epic failure that doesn’t bother to do reality checks — which it should. Poor Wisconsin next door is not doing well under conservative policies either – with all their corporate welfare and attempts to screw over their labor force via Union busting, they still face major employers fleeing the state, lower business start ups, higher unemployment, declining education scores, etc.

Bloomberg Businessweek nails it:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-04/innovative-states-arent-low-tax-states

Innovative States Aren’t Low-Tax States
“It’s intriguing to compare the fiscally conservative lists with those designed to highlight science, technology, human capital, and innovation. A very different story emerges. Take the Milken Institute’s State Technology and Science Index 2012 (pdf). Massachusetts, Maryland, California, Colorado, and Washington are its top five, while Wyoming, Nevada, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi rank lowest. The 2010 State New Economy Index, by the Kauffman Foundation, praises Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, and Connecticut, while South Dakota, Wyoming, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi are in last place.
…going through the various lists, it’s striking how low-tax states such as South Dakota and Wyoming hold a place of pride in fiscal rankings, while such states as California and Minnesota dominate innovation lists.
In general, low-tax states have historically been dependent on natural resources or on mass production industries, relying on low costs rather than innovative capacity to gain a competitive advantage. “But innovative capacity (derived through universities, R&D investments, scientists and engineers and entrepreneurial drive) is increasingly what drives competitive success,” write the Kauffman study scholars. “ (bold emphasis my addition DG)
jimf

May 9, 2014

DG- “We know that money spent by the state is an economic multiplier.” No, money kept in the pockets of private citizens ( through tax cuts), who know how to spend it better than the state, is a greater multiplier than the government spending the money. “Innovative states aren’t low tax states.” What’s an innovative state? Here from 2013, the states with the highest job growth by numbers hired: Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii. Notice that most of them are red states, and Florida, of course, is a low tax state. If you’re out of a job do you want to be in a state where you can get hired or a state where you can tell your friends “hey I live in innovative state”?
J. Ewing

May 9, 2014

You don’t understand. All of the money belongs to the government, and you should be thankful for any little scrap of it they let you keep! 🙁
Emery

May 10, 2014

/”If you’re out of a job do you want to be in a state where you can get hired or a state where you can tell your friends “hey I live in innovative state”?”/

I would rather be in a state that has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the United State. The low unemployment rate, a good economy and a balanced budget will be messaging problems for the MN GOP this fall.
J. Ewing

May 10, 2014

It’s pretty easy to manage the family budget when you can simply demand that the “boss” give you a whopping raise– more than you even need. In the real world, you would be fired on the spot, but with luck you’d only be laughed out of the office. Too bad we “hired” these DFL dummies in the first place.

“I would rather be in a state that has one of the lowest unemployment rates…” Great, wonderful. What good is it if the DFL taxes away a huge percentage of what you make, or taxes away the money your employer uses to keep you employed? The lowest unemployment states are– check them out– those with low taxes. Minnesota has a spending problem, and giving them more tax revenue to waste is not the solution.
Ian in Iowa

May 10, 2014

“one of the lowest unemployment rates”

Is that because so many skilled workers have left Minnesota for more favorable economic climates?
Powhatan Mingo

May 10, 2014

“We know that money spent by the state is an economic multiplier.”
Somebody needs to read their Keynes.
Government spending only has a only a multiplier if it is borrowed money, and then only if consumers are not “forward looking”, e.g., they don’t reduce current spending in anticipation of higher taxes to repay the borrowed stimulus money.
Also, when the government spends money, it does not seek a monetary return. This reduces its stimulative effect. It is not government spending that stimulates the economy, it is consumer spending that results from the government putting money in people’s pockets.
The stimulative effect of government spending is exactly the same as a tax cut, provided the tax cut recipient spends the money, rather than saving it.
This is literally econ 101.
Liberals have no understanding of economics because they they think it is a means to an end.
Emery

May 11, 2014

As a general rule, any broad-based economic stimulus will be split up by state according to the number of electoral votes (senators congressmen) held by that state, with a bias towards states with committee chairmen. That’s how congress works.
bosshoss429

May 12, 2014

“Poor Wisconsin next door is not doing well under conservative policies either – with all their corporate welfare and attempts to screw over their labor force via Union busting, they still face major employers fleeing the state, lower business start ups, higher unemployment, declining education scores, etc.”

As usual, Doggy Breath, your lies made out of whole cloth have outed you as the fiscally ignorant left wing slave that you are. Please name just one company that has left WI since Walker took office?

Follow on; apparently, those “busted union” MEMBERS don’t agree with you, as AFSCME membership dues collections have dropped more than 60% since RTW was enacted. Apparently, those members realized that their dues really do nothing for them and only line the pockets of the leadership. Of course, libidiots would never dare question the lavish pay and benefits that THOSE leaders enjoy.
bikebubba

May 12, 2014

Per Powhatan’s comment, if government spending is a multiplier, no matter what they do, please explain ethanol subsidies or Solyndra to me. Are we to claim that those billions down the rathole make any of us more well off?

What about corn subsidies? You know where all that money goes? You got it, land prices spike. Daycare subsidies? Funny, as they’ve increased the subsidy (tax credit is the form), daycare prices have increased. College subsidies are matched by tuition hikes.

Multiplier effect? Only in that you generate groups of people likely to vote for incumbents. Otherwise, it’s an economic demultiplier as people end up paying a lot more for commodities.

Regarding the claim that high tax states are more creative, Doggone has things backwards. States with historic creativity and conservative leadership (e.g. Illinois and California) get too big for their britches and hike spending and taxes, suffer thousands of businesses leaving.
Troy

May 12, 2014

“Factually inaccurate, wrong again.”

Best. Warning. Label. Ever.

I hope that’s how it was intended.
Joe Doakes

May 12, 2014

“We know that money spent by the state after it collects the revenue is an economic multiplier, not ‘sucking dollars out of the economy”, and that conversely, tax cuts do not result in economic growth.”

Really? We know this to be true? Any hope of a citation to authority more credible than “as everyone knows?” No? Well, then . . .

Since we KNOW this to be true, it stands to reason the state should spend MORE money to get the multiplier effect, funded by tax INCREASES.

If we work very hard at raising taxes to fund more government spending, someday the government will own all income and direct all spending in healthy, productive ways. And when that glorius day arrives, Minnesota can become a Worker’s Paradise where everyone will enjoy the same level of prosperity as residents of Cuba and North Korea.

I can hardly wait.

.
Bill C

May 12, 2014

Joe Doakes nailed it. IF government spending is so beneficial, DG, then why quit pussyfooting around. Go big. 100% personal income tax. 100% corporate income tax. Government controls every business and every industry and everyTHING.

What are we waiting for (besides those evil wrong conservatives)?
Bill C

May 12, 2014

err…then why don’t we quit, I mean.
bikebubba

May 12, 2014

Per what Bill C notes, if government in the economy is so great, please explain the history of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to me. They did, after all, have 100% government spending, and a horrifically bad economy for decades, surviving only by cash and technology infusions from useful idiots in the civilized (capitalistic) world.

Hint; the answer is that people tend not to be as careful with other peoples’ money, something that ANYONE who has ever seen a trust fund baby in college ought to know INSTINCTIVELY.