Archived Story

GOP have to allow tax increase to end shutdown

Published 10:30am Monday, July 4, 2011

The Republican majority in the Minnesota Legislature can blame Gov. Mark Dayton all they want, and talk about how a tax on the richest Minnesotans will kill jobs.

But the bottom line is, it appears that if the state shutdown, which began Friday, will end, the Republicans are going to have to allow the tax increase.

While Republican leaders have talked about compromising on various spending bills and creating a “lights-on” bill, none have said they are willing to even consider Dayton’s proposed income tax increase.

It’s clear that Dayton believes that, no matter where the cuts come from, increasing taxes is a more palatable option than cutting additional spending. It’s also clear that, for Dayton, who left the U.S. Senate after only one term, re-election is not a priority.

The Republicans, it seem, have no choice. But if and when they do approve a tax increase, they will have options.

If evidence is found that the tax increase caused business owners to cut back on employees or move their businesses elsewhere, their gubernatorial candidate can make a great case to Minnesota voters in 2014.

And if the Republicans win the governorship and both majorities in 2014, they can eliminate the tax increase.

For now, however, it’s time to give Dayton his tax increase, and remove the barricades to state parks.

  • Walt Henry

    There ARE services that state government needs to supply. These need to be paid for. Costs for these services go up. Simple and true. The unfortunate thing to me this session is the time wasted using phoney budget numbers or unrealistic hopes and dreams from “best guessers” not part of the finance department. It would have been a much better use of legislators time to determine what services we really need, how much they cost and how to pay for them. But no, some played politics. (I understand the FF Journal is not suggesting tax increases for the sake of tax increases, only that it seems to be what will be necessary to come to a deal. I agree. But I am proud the paper of my home town has the insight and intelligence to see the most logical and expeditous solution.)

  • D Lindberg

    It seems ironic to me that so many people have an opinion to a proses that has a simple solution. The truth is not a single Representative can do anything, Republican or Democrat. Not a single Senator, Republican or Democrat is capable of any action. Neither a Republican nor Democrat in either the House or Senate is capable of any action on any issue period. The Legislature has been adjourned by Minnesota State law! Only one man has the power to change that, DFL Dayton. Only one man has the power to stop the shutdown, DFL Dayton. Only one man has the ability to start the debate again, DFL Dayton. Only one man has the power to bring the legislature back to work to solve this problem, DFL Dayton. Only DFL Dayton can call a special session. Until then there can be no compromise, no debate, no budget, and no end to the shutdown. Only DFL Dayton has the ability to bring Republicans and Democrats back to St. Paul to solve this problem. Call upon our governor DFL Dayton to call a special session. Until then nothing can be done, except voice opinions, and remember what your parents said about those.

    • Phaedrus

      I don’t think that’s quite true. They can certainly negotiate prior to the special session, and it has the added benefit that the state doesn’t have to pay the legislators (like they do once a special session is called). So I’d much rather have them work out the details in advance so that the special session is amounts to one afternoon of approving the budget bills that they’ve agreed to in advance. I’d also like to see them have an agreement that the special session will end after the budget bills, because Dayton can’t end a special session, he can just call it.

    • Walt Henry

      David, you’re right. There are duties and responsibilities that rest solely with the governor. But let me change direction a little bit. One of our Twin City tv stations calculated it costs $45,000 a day to hold a special session (living and staffing expenses). Considering the GOP leadership of the legislature couldn’t agree on what was spent in the old budget (2009-2011) for over two months, do you think it wise to call them together without some agreement?

      • D Lindberg

        Is this how freedom dies? I say no, I want my representative to be part of the process and do the job we the people elected them to do. Whether you voted for Representative Nornes and Senator Hoffman or not they have been elected to represent the people of this region. I reject any negotiations that take place regarding our tax dollars without proper representation.
        No taxation without representation, and we the people should never negotiate on that principle!
        DFL Dayton needs to call a special session. Only DFL Dayton can call the special session. It’s time that we the people are represented in any negotiations that deal with our tax dollars, and how they are spent, or collected.

        • Gritzschke

          “David Lindberg” they have been elected to represent the people of this region.
          That is the problem, They are not representing the people, They are representing the big corporations, This country has been running on the Bush tax cuts, And look what happened, The same people that Cut taxes for the billionaires, then Run up a credit card debt, are the ones that are supposedly going to fix the problem they created with more tax cuts,What kind of pipe dream are the ppl living in?How are we going to pay a debt off without revenue? with Pixey Dust?

          • D Lindberg

            The people of this region have been represented exceptionally well by their elected officials. Republicans ran on a platform of reduced taxation and regulation along with balancing the budget so that Government like the people, Business Owners, and Corporations, lives within its means. The same old half-truths and misrepresentations portrayed by the DFL do not work with the educated hard working people of this region, they can see through the rhetoric. As far as pixy dust goes, why is it that when Republicans offer a balanced budget which eliminates the deficit your DFL Governor vetoes the bill and then chooses to do nothing instead of calling a special session to fix this problem? Truth of the matter is that only DFL Dayton can call the special session, and only by calling the special session can we begin to solve this problem.

  • BWD

    Again and Again, the Republicans have sat down with guy only to have him leave the table to walk his dog. The guy behaves like he has attention deficit issues. He only talks to Baak and Thiessen, when they can gain his attention, which is not much.
    Minnesota’s Government shutdown, and this guy can only walk the dog, while other Minnesota families are without a job or service. But I suppose Democrat Dayton ate well over the holiday weekend. I also suppose his dog did not go hungry either…..
    Democrat Dayton is not leading, just demanding. Democrat Dayton cannot sign one Bill to furnish an operating government without demanding the kitchen sink with it. Democrat Dayton cannot deal with only a piece of pie, no—Democrat Dayton wants the whole Pie and to take the pan home with him.
    Yet, THIS NEWSPAPER demands the Republican’s RAISE TAXES just to get the Parks open again. I have to question the fairness of the writer of this editorial and his ability to understand the realities of hopeless spin vs. leadership. Their only solution IS TO RAISE TAXES to settle up with Democrat Dayton’s lack of executive acumen.
    The Republicans have gone out of their way to work with this Governor.
    It’s Democrat Dayton’s move!
    It’s Democrat Dayton’s choice for the Shutdown!
    It’s Democrat Dayton who can or won’t call a Special Session!
    Its Democrat Dayton’s fault people have lost their jobs and services are down!
    It’s Democrat Dayton who has ignored his own promises and his responsibilities to the people of Minnesota!

  • Jennifer

    I am so tired of hearing that if the rich or businesses have to pay a dime the world will end. Many people don’t understand that most large companies (GE, MGM Studios, etc.) don’t pay any taxes at all. There are tax loopholes that allow companies in America to outsourse there services and get away with having to do pay American’s decent wages and safe working environments. America will lose to the sweat shops if we don’t end loopholes for companies investing oversees.

    Its so ridiculous that the Republicans claim to do the “lords work” and are “working for the average family.” They are not, they are putting the average family on welfare and requiring them to start a business or live life in poverty. There are no jobs so where do you apply?

    These budget cuts aren’t in the right area, and they don’t make big corporations pay there fair share nor do they level the playing field.

    Everyone should be req’d to pay taxes. Republicans have cut 100 billion in taxes to big corporations in California alone. Most of the companies are moving to Indonesia now because they can pay cheaper wages, Mexico has slowed down because they have caught the American “fair wages fair labor” bug. Companies hate this.

    In Missouri, there governor just demanded a rollback to child labor laws. Get to work slaves! Blame it on the little guy who just can’t get a break!

  • Jennifer

    Just thought I would add that in the last days before the fall of Rome. Republicans were in control, tax cuts were required and the poor were cut from every budget. Each politician served a 6 month term before re-elected. Can you guess where America is going?

  • BWD

    Jennifer Moser:
    Please know your History before comparing Republicans to Roman Dictators. Roman Emperors pandered Liberal Intitalments of Bread and Circus to the Roman Mob. The Conservative Roman Republic was far long gone, some 500 years when Rome fell. Hmmm…sounds a lot in common with Modern Unions.

  • BillSchulz

    To a conservative, suggesting that they pass a tax because they will have the option in future to eliminate the increase is the same as listening to the serpent in the Garden of Eden urging Eve, “Go ahead, just take one bite of the forbidden fruit. It won’t hurt you. It will make you smarter(win you more votes, make the anti-conservative press like you, get you invited to the soirees of the beautiful people).” Raising taxes is antithetical to those who believe that the purpose of government is to do as the people say, not to order the people about. There can be no political or personal freedom without economic freedom, and every tax is an infringement on the people to decide for themselves how to use their own money, an erosion of their liberty, a step closer to tyrannical rule by a strong , entrenched government. Our governments, State and national, have grown large by promising to give to people goods, services, which they have previously had to earn for themselves – then finding victims to tax to confiscate the funds to keep the promises to the ever growing dependent class. The election of 2010 was an expression of the people that they are fed up with the outrageous growth of government, a demand that the brakes be applied. The GOP majority in the legislature know that if they cave into Dayton’s obsession with raising taxes, those who vote to raise the taxes will likely be recalled by their own constituents even before next year’s session. Another point not spoken to here is that the GOP offered to Dayton that if he called the legislature for a special session to enact a lights on bill , the leaders would sign an agreement with Dayton that the session would deal with only the matter of lights on bills. Yet Dayton refused, choosing to force the most pain possible. Don’t throw out that red herring about the legislature running wild with other bills, they want to get back to their real jobs and families.

    • Phaedrus

      “Raising taxes is antithetical to those who believe that the purpose of government is to do as the people say, not to order the people about.” This is illustrative; I’ve always wondered where the “no taxes ever” crowd was coming from. But the faulty assumption is that no one would ever choose to pay more, and that’s clearly false (otherwise it would be claimed to be universally true). That must be where the “you’re awfully willing to spend other people’s money” came into play. Of course, that just translates as “I don’t care about anyone other than myself”. YOU live in this society and enjoy all the benefits (even the one’s you don’t think about). Editorial aside, your claim is nonsense since it’s based on a false premise. It’s also internally inconsistent, since it could be the case that the people told the government to do something, and doing something means “ordering people about”. It’s eerily close to the notion Rousseau talks about in The Social Contract, but the idea is that you’re not being ordered about by the government, since the government is you, and thus you are more free in a society with rules than in a “state of nature”. So we say, “make a law against murder,” and the government can’t order people not to murder others or punish them? That’s just silly, but seems related to the next assertion about economic freedom. That’s clearly false. First, we have to clear up some things. It seems to be the case that political freedom is a precondition for economic freedom for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that the political machinery is the mechanism by which a country would choose its economic system, right? You don’t set up an economic system and then decide which political system you’re going to adopt – that would be crazy. What if the people in power didn’t want to go with that economic system? They’d change it (so everyone wasted time the first round). Now, if you’re going to say the economic system would override the political system, then there is no way to distinguish the two, something we’re coming scarily close to with Supreme Court decisions like “Citizen’s United”. People with money will just buy the positions they want. So clearly we have to have political freedom before economic freedom, and since you’re personal freedoms are defined by your political system, it follows that it also defines your economic freedoms (for example, the government will probably do everything it can to keep you from purchasing a nuclear weapon, and most of us would think that’s a good thing). Additionally, after clarifying the issue, it now seems that economic freedom shouldn’t even be in the conversation with the other two, since it looks like economic freedom is a proper subset of personal freedom. Now, since I’ve clearly refuted the “principles” you employed at the beginning of your slippery slope, I’m not going to bother with the rest of it. Maybe we should try for some conceptual clarity before writing?

      • D Lindberg

        All this DFL rhetoric from somebody that claims to be an independent. The sad reality of our times is that people are hurting. The question that needs to be answered is why?
        Cutting taxes and reducing regulations has an equilibrium shifting effect, not just with The State or Regional economy but at the local level as well. As entities are allowed to keep more of what they legally earn there are 2 choices that can be made. Either that entity invests in the future or it does nothing and pockets the money. Most liberals want us to believe that the evil corporate or independent business owner is just going to pocket the money.
        Fortunately any business entity, if we would just listen, will tell us that if that business entity is not planning for the future so that they can remain competitive, their competitors will eventually drive them from the marketplace. So the reality of the situation is simple as business entities make more money they invest and grow towards the future. They do this by what’s referred to as capital investments. Capital investment takes many forms, one such form is the hiring of more employees’. At this juncture a shift in the equilibrium takes effect.
        By simply reducing the cost of doing business our government can have a jump start effect towards the economy. As taxes and regulations are reduced, the cost of doing business is reduced. This will shift the equilibrium to the left; bring down prices for two reasons. There is a lack of purchasing power by the general public (hence lack of demand) and there are unusually high inventories of products or services (again lack of demand). As business entities start to make capital investments and improvements (hiring of employee’s and or purchasing) we start to see the jumpstart effect. Now this will not immediately cause a shift to the right in the economic equilibrium (newly employed people consume goods and services), because the newly employed will be producing product and services that will be adding to inventories (hence demand stays relative to supply.)
        Now I know this is a long drawn out way of saying the best social program is a job, and jobs are not created by taxing the rich, which is the true fallacy of comments lately.
        As far as the Citizens United case goes I think that when unions, who do not pay taxes, are not allowed to make political contributions; then I think an argument could be made towards not allowing corporations (who do pay taxes) to not make political contributions.
        Now, as social responsibility goes we all do have a responsibility to society. We all live in this society and do enjoy the benefits associated with this society. However our responsibility lies in being a productive and active participant in society. To say that one group owes society more than another is ridiculous and malicious. To compare common good sense laws against murder and punishing those who commit such crimes, with the justification of social justice is where conceptual clarity ends and ideology begins.
        Another point, as you and others so clearly stated that economic freedom is directly linked to political freedom. Why is it that you would openly chose, in a society based on freedom like ours, to willingly and maliciously attempt to create economic and political slaves. By dehumanizing and attacking the wealth and demanding higher taxation for such people are we not in a sense creating a subservient class of citizens? When we attack those amongst us, and confiscate their economic freedom are we also not denying their political freedom? Yes we should have conceptual clarity before writing, and just maybe there might be some slippery slopes out there to be wary of.
        So why are people hurting? I don’t know. I do know that until DFL Dayton calls the special session we are all going to continue to hurt. Only DFL Dayton can call the special session and stop all the pain being spread by this shutdown.

        • Phaedrus

          Dave – there is a difference between a form of logical analysis (my response to Bill – I just unpacked the claim and found it to internally inconsistent) and rhetoric – I’ll use an example from early in your post. “Most liberals want us to believe that the evil corporate or independent business owner is just going to pocket the money.” I know quite a few liberals, but certainly not enough to have a representative sample so that I can claim what “most” liberals want. From my limited experience, corporations aren’t seen as evil or good, they are amoral entities. Now some of their activities can be seen as evil or wrong (intentionally dumping toxic materials, hacking phones, creating worthless derivatives, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that they all do that either. Anyone who paints with such a large brush is going to be wrong most of the time, it’s just another version of stereotyping which IS a form of rhetoric – “(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric (just so we’re on the same page).
          I know the story you’re telling because it’s the same story that’s been told for the last 30 years. Over that time we have ample evidence to suggest that the story you’re telling isn’t right (see trends on income disparity). In addition to that, there’s something strange going on in your argument. If the cost of business goes down, and people have more money to spend, that MAY increase demand, but it might not either (there’s only so much milk I can drink, only so many pairs of shoes I can use, etc.). So it’s not clear that there is a direct correlation when it comes to stimulating demand. Since we’re talking about demand, it doesn’t follow that having extra money will actually increase the number of jobs. Take the GE example – they didn’t pay much in taxes (if any, there’s contradictory claims out there), but they reduced most of their tax liability through tax breaks applied to improving their facilities. Most of the jobs though were outsourced. As an amoral entity, it makes sense to get the cheapest labor possible, and if there is a net gain after the costs of transportation are included, then (if money is our sole motive) the rational choice is to go with the cheapest labor (which is a larger percentage of the bottom line than taxes). Now there is a race to the bottom, and an explanation for why the middle class is shrinking. It’s also a recipe for creating the economic and political slaves you deplore.
          As for unions, they were under the same rules as corporations before and after Citizen’s United. Corporations could donate the $2500 (I think, I’m not exactly sure what the max was, and there are different rules for different types of donations) to a candidate and so could unions. After Citizen’s United both are allowed to spend as much money as they can raise. The scary part is that now I don’t think they have to even tell the candidates themselves. If I want to run a smear campaign, I no longer have to have the, “I’m Candidate A, and I approve this message” disclaimer at the end.
          Just for the sake of clarity, I said that economic freedom is a subset of personal freedom, which falls under the umbrella of political freedom. Thus, while it’s true that the two are linked, they are not equivalents (even numbers are a proper subset of whole numbers, and even though both sets are infinite, the set of whole numbers is larger than the set of even numbers – Thank you George Cantor). So “economic freedom” is like “environmental freedom” (an environment as free as possible from toxins), or any other “freedom” you want to talk about that can be properly assigned to a person.
          As for the “rant” at the end, refer back to the definition of rhetoric. It also employs a Straw Man, since I’ve never “maliciously” attempted to create any kind of “slave”, nor have I tried to “dehumanize” them. Aren’t the “fair tax” people calling for a 10% across the board tax? So if it’s true that people making millions of dollars are paying a total tax burden of 10% and the middle class is paying a total tax burden of 12%, isn’t that actually the same proposal only separated by 2%? The rest, to borrow your phrase, is just GOP rhetoric.

    • spottedsunshine

      Actually, I’m fairly certain the GOP ran on a platform of job creation, which we sorely needed. Haven’t seen any jobs since, really.

  • Mr_Lincoln

    7700

  • BillSchulz

    The only jobs government or politicians can create are GOVERNMENT JOBS, and we already have too many of those with their snouts in the public trough. The GOP campaigned on the promise to assist in the creation of jobs by holding down taxes and reforming government, i.e, to identify and expose those structures and regulations within State government which inhibit, not assist the creation of private sector jobs, and then write legislation to simplify and streamline governmental processes so that start up businesses and existing firms are not thwarted in the creation of jobs and business revenues by the cumbersome aparat of a State government which has become, under almost 40 years of socialist DFL political practices, hostile to business and commerce, obstructive of innovation and expansion of successful business models.
    Now this is a process which seems to be anethema to the editorial management of this paper, hence, their obtuse and stubborn demands that only soaking taxpayers and spending beyond our means will bring about some vaguely defined paradise on earth. In the twenty-six years I have been reading this paper since I returned from a career elsewhere, there have been several management changes in the Journal’s editorial offices, but the last years since roughly the departure of the publisher Jim Morgan have seen the paper evolve, or more appropriately, degenerate, into a leftist rag intent on promoting leftist politspeak, with a deliberate withdrawal from common sense and the readership. I can’t think of a special project requoring a tax increase in this city in fifteen years which the Journal hasn’t ballyhooed as necessary, decent, the right thing to do. Mathematic calculations are to this editorial staff a nuisance standing in the way of their Pollyanna like fantasies of creating a perfect world – they only care that someone else pay for that world. Some inconvenient math for you: For Dayton to raise 1.8 billion dollars by raising the taxes of 7700 millionaires, each of them will have to pay at least $233,000 in taxes to meet Dayton’s goals of extra money for which, by the way, he refuses to tell what he will spend it on. Under current tax rates, that million dollar earner pays about $80,000 per million. Anyone capable of earning a million a year is capable of earning it anywhere he chooses to live, and will likely move. Now, if Dayton spends that money, and the rich have moved away so they can’t be taxed, and the poor can’t afford to be taxed, who do you think is going to have to foot the bill for Dayton’s slush fund? Who is left but the middle class to pay for Dayton’s schemes? Better Dayton get off his spoiled rich brat tantrum and face reality, the GOP can do the arithmetic and were sent to St. Paul by their constituents to pass a budget that hews to the principle of living within our means. Even little orphan Annie has to grow up someday. Time for Markie Dayton and the Daily Journal to face facts and allow the State to recover from the damage caused by Dayton’s shutdown.

    • Phaedrus

      Bill – at least you’re consistent, once again you start with a False statement. “The only jobs government or politicians can create are GOVERNMENT JOBS”. If it were true, then everyone who works for Mark’s Sand and Gravel (and all other road construction) are government jobs, as well as those who have title and abstract companies, etc. (or course, with a universal claim like that, it only takes one exception to make the claim false). The same is true for the following claim, “Anyone capable of earning a million a year is capable of earning it anywhere he chooses to live, and will likely move.” If I’m a lawyer making a million a year in Minneapolis, it seems unlikely that I’d have that income in Pierre SD. If I’m making a million a year mining or in timber/paper in northern MN, can I just pick up my operation and go somewhere else? If I’m farming 5 sections of beans, can I sell that off and move to Arizona and do the same thing? Why do you repeat such nonsense when it’s obviously false? Something is true when it corresponds to a state of affair in the world, not because you believe it or repeat it over and over again. Your speculation about the goals and motives of others is entertaining, but can’t be taken seriously.

      • BillSchulz

        Glad I lured you out, Phaedrus. I assume that Phaedrus is a pen name you use here and the other blogs in your portfolio, but that is no big deal here, we have a number of people writing under pseudonyms. If I remember my Plato from my undergraduate days, Phaedrus was a young sophist, friend (lover?)of Socrates, who expressed the opinion that anything was fair in an argument, obfuscation, circular logic, lies, as the purpose of arguing was to win, and so all is permitted.
        You do your namesake proud when you pull out a few exceptions to my statement and then use the Socratic tactic to state that if there is even one exception to a statement, principle, rule, all which is stated is therefore invalid , untrue, unworthy of consideration by a rational person. But inherent in using Socratic methods of argumentation is an acceptance of Socrate’s truism that the only thing we can know for certain is that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, for there are always exceptions.
        So we are forced to deal with experience, and experience shows us that those with enough resources, whether money, training, education and experience, will gravitate towards States with the least punitive tax rates for business, and take their businesses along with them…and the jobs in those businesses. Sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, those States with the lowest unemployment rates and most thriving PRIVATE SECTOR are the States with the lowest or no income tax rates. Simply put, Dayton doesn’t give a rip about the delitirious affect his proposed tax increases will have on the economy, jobs, the flight of capital and educated workers from Minnesota.. he only wants to prove his MACHO over the legislature. And this paper, in its blind obiesance to the DFL is pushing his agenda and lies.

        • Jake Krohn

          NPR’s Planet Money recently reported on this:

          “Studies: Rich Don’t Flee High-Tax States”

          http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/29/135813061/studies-rich-dont-flee-high-tax-states

          I know, I know. NPR is a bastion of liberalism/socialism/whatever. But still. There’s a lot more to the migration issue than simply taxes. Discuss.

        • Phaedrus

          Bill – I don’t think you should trust your memory anymore, and should probably make some attempt to verify things. Even the Wikipedia entry (which I’m not crazy about) spells it out more accurately. Like you’re writing about politics, your interpretation of Plato is shallow, myopic and parochial. You seem to have a tendency to focus on the tangential aspects of the story, the point of the dialogue is to become a “lover of Wisdom” not a “lover of things, person”. You should probably retake the course because you seem to be confusing a number of issues. Thus, it was the Sophists who taught to argue for the sake of winning, not Socrates and that conversation was in a different dialogue. Have you actually read any of these dialogues? You’re “truism” is an obvious falsehood, so why attribute such nonsense to Socrates, What are you hoping for? You’d have to qualify the “truism” above a little more, since it’s obviously the case that I’m the only one who can know with certainty how I feel about things. Now if we’re talking about things in the world that are external to us (and thus get our information through the mediation of our senses), then you’re getting closer, but you should read the Theaetetus before making too many claims. Thus, the Phaedrus is not about how to practice sophistry, it’s about recognizing it as such and then turning toward an investigation of the truth. That’s the standard interpretation and the source of the name.
          If you’d bothered to consult any basic logic book, you’d discover that part of the definition of a universal claim is that it must apply to all cases. Look at it this way, the nature of a universal claim is such that it becomes immediately obvious that every attempt to STEREOTYPE is almost certain to fail. For example, if I make the claim, “All women love to shop” and you can find one woman who doesn’t like to shop, then my original claim is false (and I’ve encountered a number of women who aren’t fond of shopping). There’s no “gimmick” – it’s part of the definition.
          So, if we must deal with the empirical (and it’s not entirely clear that this follows from what has been said – you didn’t argue that Socrates was wrong), I’m not opposed to going that route, but I can’t do it “intuitively”. There must be some kind of evidence, if experience “shows us” something, then you must be able to find evidence to support it (since “experiencing something” requires participation and participation requires “doing something” and “doing something” would leave evidence – a relocation or something). So if what you say is true, then why is it that N. and S. Dakota, Mississippi, etc., aren’t being overrun with businesses flocking there? What kind of evidence can we use to say that Minnesota shouldn’t be tied for the 8th friendliest to business state (actually, tied for 8th with Utah)? http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516043/
          Just because something “seems” true doesn’t make it so, you have to provide evidence (which is a major theme of the Theaetetus). I don’t have a “portfolio” of other blogs (I have too much to do to spend that much time online), but if it’s true that “all politics are local”, then the place to expose the nonsense is at the local level (it’s better than rolling my eyes at the TV). If you want an example of circular logic (not in the sense of lexiconography, but in the sense of begging the question – that’s the bad kind), look no further than your last paragraph. Paraphrased, you seem to be saying that the states with the lowest tax rates have the lowest unemployment because they have the lowest tax rates. That’s circular reasoning at this best, but in addition it has the added benefit of being, once again, false. Minnesota is tied for 11th (with Kansas), but TX is 24th. Let’s look at the bottom 5, Mississippi, Florida, Rhode Island, California and Nevada. Wouldn’t 3 of those 5 qualify as “low tax” states? http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

          • BillSchulz

            Phaedrus, what you call circular logic (states with lower unemployment rates are states with lower taxes, etc.) is not , as you attempt to conclude, circular logic, but an example of cause and effect. Lower taxes on individual and business incomes, and you make your State a more attractive place for businesses to locate, with a corresponding rise in people working rather than unemployed. Raise the taxes and squeeze the businesses ability to turn a profit, to finance expansion, and businesses leave for more friendly places. I was living in California from the late 60′s to mid 80′s and saw that phenomena at play. First a strong growth in technology firms (birth and flourishing of “Silicon Valley”), then the State raising taxes to finance a burgeoning welfare State, to support a growing welfare class coming over the southern borders. Businesses (Intel, Honeywell, AMD,Levi Strauss,Broderbund,Microsoft, as a few examples) began to flee for Arizona Texas,Washington,States with lower or NO State income taxes. Some of their employees relocated, others lost their jobs and were replaced in the new locations with locals or employees willing to relocate.
            Simply put, in your “amoral” corporations, taxes are regarded as another expense(and all expenses are limiters of profit, re-investment, expansion) and an unemotional executive whose purpose is to guide his enterprise to profitability and survival, will take whatever measures are necessary to achieve those ends…including relocation to more business friendly, lower tax environments.

  • ackerjohnson

    The wealthy don’t flee high tax states and they don’t create jobs either. The one and only thing that creates jobs is demand or sales.

    Both supposed facts are nothing more than boggie men created by the wealthy and their
    republican friends to scare others and preserve tax breaks for the wealthy.

Editor's Picks

Landfill fee to start for non-FF residents

Non-Fergus Falls residents looking to get rid of tree waste at the Fergus Falls landfill will have to pay for it on an interim basis ... Read more

State’s first handicapped canoe dock in FF park

Through the cooperative efforts of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Department and the City of Fergus Falls, Veterans Park has a new ADA Canoe/Kayak ... Read more

Attempted robbery report was false [UPDATED]

The report of two men trying to rob a 15-year-old boy Sunday night in an alley on Lincoln Avenue was not true, according to Fergus ... Read more