Posted: 11/29/2006 2:06:24 PM EDT
Just saw on the evening news the MN Budget Surplus story. Said if the doled it out the way Jesse did, each couple could get $835, each individual $410.... ....That's a pretty decent chunk of toy money. The reality of it happening...... Still kind of a good thing for the state to be sitting like that, even if they say it could disappear pretty damn quick. |
As I saw on the news, Pawlenty made an annoucement concerning a budget surplus, and there is in fact a law that says if the budget is surplus by X amount it has to be returned to the people. He also said that any money "returned" would most likely be done so in property tax relief, so if you're a renter....Thanks. I'll post a link to the news so we got all the facts here.....RedStar Tribune Article No Fox 9 link, has yet to be posted it appears. |
|
He needs to give back whatever he borrowed from the taconite minerals fund so the people up here quit their bitchin, that's all I heard about before the last election. I don't know what teh deal is, it's some kind of proprerty tax credit that's from the mines deferring or an alternative to their property tax or some damn thing. Now where's my money? 
|
They only have to PROPOSE a return, they don't have to do it. +1 on the renter thing. We pay into taxes too so we should get some of our $$$ back. |
But they haven't even taken it yet From everything I've heard so far, it's a "projected budget surplus" that we will have in two years if the incomes stay the same as the last year and we don't do something stupid, like build a stadium that wasn't in the budget. This means it's not collected yet. And with the makeup of the up coming state legislature, I have very little faith that there will be much of a surplus to give back when they get done  .I'm still kinda giggling at all the demands to give back a "projected surplus". How can you give back something you still haven't collected yet? For the last surplus, the money that Gov Feather Boah gave back wasn't even his....it was Gov Arne's legacy. At least it was already in the bank before they was even talked about to "give it back". I would much rather see productive ways to change the way we tax and just decrease what we steal from the taxpayers BEFORE it is a surplus. At least a property tax decrease would help offset the increase in local taxes because of the reduced subsidies that the state has given to local agencies in recent years. Don't get me wrong....I think government at all levels is over spending and needs to get back to what a government should really do, but at least the spending at the local level, where most of it has been shoved to for local property taxes, is being paid for by the local residents and accountable for by the local residents. I hope you all voted for your local elections this fall as well as the state and national races. |
|
The correct answer, of course, is to reduce the income tax rate until the projected surplus is more like 1-2% of the total budget instead of 10%. Enough of a cushion in case the bean counters are wrong, but small enough to keep the legislature honest. But I'm dreaming. Historically Minnesota has been one of the worst wealth redistributing entitlement program states in the union. With the current legislature, I don't see that trend changing anytime soon. I'll tell you one thing, if I ever move out of this state, I will make sure that wherever I move to will have two things 1) great gun rights 2) fiscally conservative governments at all levels. |
Yes-property tax decreases result in soccer moms pimping for the NEA and calling me during the election cycle asking me to think of little Johnny and vote for ANOTHER school district referendum because "schools aren't getting as much money from the state." I'm getting tired of calling them on their bullshit. I don't want to pay for another Deputy Assistant Principal For Coffee Making and towel warmers and custom stone tile flooring for the boys locker room. |
I agree, taxes should be lowered in the future to make sure we keep closer to the reserve total and past projected surplus rather than building it up and spending money to refund it, but did we read the same article? Are the article numbers accurate? Based on the article, their projected extra income over the next biennial budget is $1.132b of a total budget of $32.5b. This means that they are collecting an extra 3.48%, not 10%. The other $1.038b is coming from the roughly 3.5% they over collected the last 18 months through what is expected to come in until June when the current budget ends. I guess I don't know how they set their tax rates in comparison to what they plan to spend in the budget, but I find it kinda dumb that they can't adjust the tax rate a little faster based on having two years of surplus and predicting two more years of surplus. Since they seem to have a thing against actually lowering taxes, the usual answer is to raise the budget to what we think they will collect. If there is a shortfall, then the answer is to always raise the tax rate.  |