In a move which is utterly shocking, Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and lapdog Dan Gustafson convinced swing vote Mary Sherry to vote in favor of raising Burnsville’s max tax to 5.6% last evening. While this does not necessarily mean that Burnsville will have to raise the levy to 5.6%, it certainly creates a situation where the mayor and her cronies are not doing everything in their power to ensure the city shares the burden placed on the electorate by other taxation authorities.
While Gustafson, Kautz, and Sherry made a poor decision both Charlie Crichton and Dan Kealey lived up to their campaign promises made in their interviews with me (Charlie and Kealey) and spoke against and voted against raising the levy more than the 3.2% which would have been covered by the decertification of a TIF district. Councilmember Kealey went so far as to deliver a long and passionate speech about why he could not support raising taxes on the citizens and business owners of Burnsville which was probably meant to move Mary Sherry and keep her from siding with Gustafson and Kautz. Unfortunately it did not work and she ended up siding with the two who continue to steal from taxpayers to fund their own personal pet projects. Why anyone would want to side with a man who is happy to steal from his own employees and then file bankruptcy to steal from his creditors I’ll never know.
But after Kealey spoke Kautz went on the offensive and had this to say (this is mainly a quote but I was typing it as she said it live–forgive me if it’s not 100%):
All of us are very conservative in the way we look at how we manage the city and staff is the same way. We do this every year, more so than any other council in the metro area that I know of. We have been frugal but we have also been looking forward. What I would like to do is approve the max tax as staff has put forth and we can work through some of these things…but we need to do it in a very thoughtful way and not in a way that demoralizes the people who provide services to our citizens.
How sweet. The Mayor wants to do things in a way which will not demoralize the staff but forgets that raising taxes on the electorate, in addition to all the taxes which have already been raised on them by the feds, the county, the school district, etc will demoralize THEM. While Burnsville has been whittled down to staffing levels seen in 1995, something which I consider a great accomplishment and not a bad thing in the least, she’s more concerned with a few people instead of the tens of the thousands in the city? GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT MADAM MAYOR.
Overall last night’s meeting was an absolute and utter joke. Dan Gustafson should have stepped down long ago, the Mayor should be tending to her own personal life rather than worrying about meddling in the lives of those who will hopefully not reelect her in 2012, and Mary Sherry needs a good hard slap of common sense to get her back on sanity’s side.
What do you think about Burnsville voting to allow City Staff to look at a 5.6% max tax for 2011? Do you agree that by not giving City Staff the latitude to increase services that they are demoralizing them? Do you really believe the mayor when she says she’s a conservative? Whatever you have to say about taxes going up in Burnsville go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
September 8th, 2010 at 8:33 am
I look forward to the Mayor’s frugality when it comes to voting whether/not to spend $50,000 of the taxpayers money on twinkle lights in the Heart of the City this winter.
September 8th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Ah, but the twinkling lights are meant to boost morale, so it’s a win-win situation.
September 8th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Doesn’t shock me.
September 8th, 2010 at 9:19 am
I watched the meating last night as well as the previous work session in which they had the first vote for the max tax. In both occasions the mayor has taken this stance that we need to just vote for it now and then the real discussions about making cuts will come this fall. The problem is that sensible people like Dan Kealey try and speak up and the mayor gets in the defensive posture. If the true intent is to make the cuts, why does this keep getting passed on without a true sense of how the cuts will be made, other than “we will talk about it.” It seems that 60 days from now the argument will change to, “Well we voted for it all along, why wouldn’t we do it now. We all knew we were voting for the max increase”
I wish there were a way they could incorporate some type of tele-conference with the city council once a month. My wife works nights, so I am at home with the little ones and can’t attend these meetings.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
It seems that Ms Sherry has decided to cast her lot with the people who are not up for reelection on the current ballot.
She has chosen to screw over the people who elected by siding with the queen and the spendthrift.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:08 am
TimH, maybe if you brought your little ones to the meeting, it would put a face/faces on the sources of these tax monies.
Think about this: When talking about changing HOC parameters to accommodate rentals in the unsold condos, when talking about reasons for the PAC failures, when talking about businesses shuttering around the City or spaces that have been vacant for years, when talking about issues regarding blighted foreclosed homes scattered throughout the City, and WHEN EXPLAINING AWAY THEIR PERSONAL FINANCIAL FAILURES AND FAILURE TO MEET THEIR OWN OBLIGATIONS TO PAY TAXES, excuse #1 is the “worst economy since the Great Depression”.
“Economic forces”. Like taxes that small business owners can’t weather and still feed their families. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF MR. GUSTAFSON.
Small business owners are failing in this community. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF MR. GUSTAFSON.
Citizens of Burnsville and neighboring communities (you know…the broader Dakota County which ALSO is raising taxes to fund things like the unsustainable BRT) are being laid off from their jobs. Not only can these people not sustain the mistakes the City Council has already made, they are making no money at all. YOU SAID IT YOURSELF MR. GUSTAFSON.
Perhaps the most telling statement by our own City Councilman:
Really, Mr. Gustafson? Is the exception when you are SPENDING THE MONEY OF CITIZENS WHO ARE SHUTTERING BUSINESSES, BEING LAID OFF, CAN’T PAY THEIR BILLS, AND GOING BANKRUPT, INCLUDING YOURSELF?!?
Then, apparently, the elected official is immune from the economic realities.
I would challenge the Mayor, Dan Gustafson, and Mary Sherry to go to the Eagan Resource Center (food shelf serving our community) where client demand is off the charts. Look those people in the eye and tell them they can shoulder 5.6% more. Look those people in the eye and see what they think of “demoralizing” City employees who HAVE A FUCKING JOB.
“Demoralizing” is the laid off 20-year FedEx warehouse employee who gave to the company and never in their lifetime EVER thought they would need to use a food shelf to survive.
Listen up and listen good Kautz, Gustafson, and Sherry: The ONLY appropriate action is ZERO. Period.
You let your goddamned employees be demoralized for a while. Maybe it’ll give them a feel for life out here in the REAL WORLD. The real world that, clearly, you have lost touch with.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Would this be in the form of a property tax increase?
I’m really not bright when it comes to finances, as my bank account will attest, but it seems to me that higher property taxes aren’t good for anybody. It sure won’t make the cost of housing come down, from my rather Cyclopian view.
I don’t have a problem with taxing luxuries. How many boats does a person need? (Before you stone me, I get that adding to a tax on luxury discourages consumers from buying and that hurts business. Got it.) But people need to be able to count on the roofs over their heads, and that comes before any street beautification projects.
What is this obsession with Burnsville Parkway, anyway? Do members of the city government own property on it? Or do they just want to run a Mayberry?
And speaking of county taxes, why is Burnsville Library closing again for renovation?
September 8th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Bill,
Ever thought about registering LazyBurnsville.org?
September 8th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Michele,
The Mayor lives in the HOC, in a condo above Jo Jo’s Rise and Wine. So yes, she does live along Burnsville Parkway (within half a block).
MSPD, your post should be framed and hung at city hall. In all the great posts you have made, this one captured my feelings exactly. I could not have said it better, and I think you speak for thousands of people in our community.
September 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Our rents at our properties are back to where they were in 2005 and our tenants are barely making it at these levels because this is also where there sales are!
How can we get government to do what we are all forced to do in difficult economic times?
September 8th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I read that part and the first thing that comes to my mind is WTF does that have to do with city taxing authority? The Mayors seems to love to throw out these Non sequitur arguments in a way to tie unrelated results together. In this case, it seems the Mayor is attempting to draw a line between staff taxing authority and the mental health of the staff. Implying that the mental health of staff needs to be taken into consideration before voting.
Dan Gustafson or the Mayor must have some pictures or something in a file on Mary Sherry. Why else would an intelligent person determine the best way to ensure a fiscally conservative budget is to let staff know they have an essentially blank check. What an idiot.
September 8th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I remember when the Mayor used a similar argument in support of building the PAC during that controversy, along the lines of the fact that staff had been working so hard on the idea over the past 10 years, so it would not be fair to staff to NOT build the PAC.
I have a feeling since staff has seen budgets cut, staff positions cut, and staff has been dealing with the fallout of the PAC operation and management, that “staff” wishes the mayor had not done the “staff” such a big favor.
I have a feeling that “staff” eyes were rolling when they heard that bit from the mayor last night.
Oh, and ditto what MSPD said.
September 8th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I did some really rough math, but it seems like the amount of money this tax increase would raise is roughly similar to the amount of money that the BPAC is lost last year.
September 8th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I sit on the board of my townhome association and as the treasurer, I’ll be advocating for a 16% dues increase this year (while facing reelection to the board in the same meeting). That sounds crazy at face value, but if we’re going to meet capital expenses over the next few years – new roof, asphalt seal-coating, etc. – we have no choice but to either raise dues or levy assessments. Our current reserves and future dues just don’t match the needs we’ll face and I think a higher monthly payment is an easier pill for people to swallow than an assessment of $1,000, $3,000, or even $5,000+. Of course, it’s pretty easy to justify the few basic, minimal expenses we have to maintain our property.
The City of Burnsville finds itself in a much more difficult position. Craig Ebeling can keep telling us the city is squeezing water out of a rock to make the budget work, but the residual effect of the BPAC and its ongoing costs are going to leave the residents skeptical, and rightfully so. I really think Kautz dug her own grave on any negative backlash from this. Any increase may very well be justifiable, but you’re going to have an extremely difficult time selling that to your city given the way you’ve spent the citizens’ money in the past. I can buy a tax increase if I really believe that cutting K-9 was your only option, but I just don’t buy it.
September 8th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Joey,
I think you touch on an important distinction.
The increase in your townhome dues is to pay for things absolutely necessary to maintain the buildings as viable, secure places to live.
If the City operated even close to that same standard, this discussion would never even have to take place.
September 8th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Sounds like Burnsville is following what Mark Dayton will do if he’s elected. Raise Taxes, then more taxes.
September 8th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
As a Burnsville resident I would like to personally apologize to the public for voting for Council member Sherry in the last election. I was an idiot for NOT checking out her background as to whether or not she had any type of business/economic/common sense degree or what experience she had in the business world……… I’m sorry Mary, but writing spiritual newspaper articles and spiritual books just doesn’t seem to qualify an individual to make sound “city spending” decisions in our current REAL WORLD situation. Please don’t calm the spiritual waters within by taxing our poor Burnsville citizens to death. In fact looking at Mayor Kautz’s bio…She received her Masters Degree in Counseling Psychology from the Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago, Illinois. She received her undergraduate degree in Theology with a psychology focus from the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul (Quoting her own website). Does her educational background qualify her for being mayor???? All the psychologists that I personally know seem to have more issues than their clients. Holy crap…… This looks more like prerequisites for a job with Dakota County. So is that why Burnsville has taken grants and given property to Dakota County CDA? Taking property OFF the tax rolls? Burdening the Burnsville resident with more and more property taxes? Then there is Dan Gustafson…….He owned a bar in Minneapolis promoting jazz prior to his entering the Burnsville political arena. We don’t know what really happened to his jazz bar. but he showed up in Burnsville owning a freight forwarding outfit which went bankrupt. He is a council member who started the “for profit” Art and All That Jazz festival. Then prior to his vote in favor of the Preforming Arts Center the “Art and All That Jazz festival” became a “nonprofit”. His vote in favor or the PAC WAS a “conflict of interest”. Now he is talking about getting involved in a “nonprofit” organization. Sure sounds as if he is going to return to the helm of the now 301(c)(3) Art and All That Jazz Festival. So once again, we have three members of the Burnsville city council who are more concerned with self interests than citizen interests.
September 8th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Bill, thanks for keeping tabs on this for us. Brent & Lisa
September 8th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Don’t feel badly, Will. I was actually thinking of voting for Dayton, even though I think he’s running a hate campaign (it’s all rich peoples’ fault). I just don’t want Emmer to win. I think they’re both rather awful, but I was choosing the least awful. My oldest scolded me. He reminded me about how important it is to vote your conscience, something I’ve preached to him forever.
I’m going to research the Independent more. I know that he’s for raising taxes, but he’s honest about it. Dayton is saying, “Hey, it’s not your fault things are so bad. It’s the RICH people’s fault.” Emmer is saying, “Corporate C.E.O.’s would invest more in hiring people if they weren’t taxed so much.” Uh, yeah, right to both.
Truth is, it’s ALL our faults that things are so bad right now, but people don’t want to hear it. We maxed out on credit, we bought houses we couldn’t afford, we went to war without weighing the costs against the outcome. People, Republicans and Democrats alike, we were STUPID. But the politicians aren’t going to tell us that. (You see the “we” in here? I blame myself, too.)
I think I just want some honesty in a politician for a change.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:09 am
I know this post has nothing to do with state politics, but since a few people went there…I’ve bought into the 2-party system (and by that I mean 1 of those parties) for far too long. I did the “lesser of 2 evils” thing. I’m done with it. Horner’s got my vote. The fact that he’s an Independent doesn’t make him any better and he may wind up being just as bad as the others, but I don’t think so. He’s the only one who doesn’t hesitate to give an opinion when asked for it. That matters to me.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Minnesota tends to do a good job of balancing it’s powers. I think if Mark Dayton becomes governor he’ll find he’s dealing with a republican legislature.
I don’t buy the “we bought houses we couldn’t afford” rhetoric anymore. That is what was going on in 2007, 2008 and early 2009. These days, the house you could afford when you bought it is becoming less and less valuable. The average income of middle class Minnesota is dropping, the value of their property is dropping, and the taxes are increasing. What is happening today is inevitable unless something changes to spur the economy.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Michele, Joey, and Mikeh. Three great posts right in a row.
I will also be voting for Horner. I am conservative and consider myself a republican, but I cant/wont vote for Emmer.
I am sick of the two parties telling lies about each other and then telling us all lies about how its someone elses fault. I happen to agree with Michele that there is plenty of blame to go around. I really had hoped that Obama was telling the truth when he talked about “Change.”
September 9th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I’ve always liked the speech by President Shepard in “The American President” where he talks about his opponent’s tactics:
“We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them… He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for it. ”
That seems to be what our politicians are best at in real life, too.
September 9th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Everybody hates taxes. Their taxes, anyway. But we all love what our taxes buy — public schools, police and fire protection, snow removal, etc. We don’t want any of these things taken away, but we also don’t want our taxes raised. It’s a glaring inconsistency.
Frankly, I like having the snow plows clear my street in January. I like having music classes in our high school. I like having police and fire protection. I’m willing to pay for these things. Now, if those costs go up (and they have and will), then we have to pay more for them — which means increasing taxes, one way or another.
That said, I’m never happy for my own taxes to increase, but as long as everybody’s paying their fair share, I can live with it. What I can’t live with are people much wealthier than I who don’t pay their fair share. Hell yeah, raise the taxes on the wealthy — or at least remove the unwarranted tax cuts that the Bushies gave them during the last administration.
People who earn two, three, ten, twenty times more than I do can afford to pay a little more in taxes. Try raising those taxes first before you raise taxes on the rest of us. Then, if we still need increased taxes to pay for the necessities that we like and need, then by all means do so. That’s part of our public duty — paying for the services we use.
September 9th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Obama’s “change” line intrigued me from the start. He never said anything about change for the BETTER. At best we had a fifty-fifty chance that he intended to work to IMPROVE things.
I am very sorry to see Mary Sherry taking the course that she is. I had hoped that she would work for the citizens of Burnsville; it makes me sad to see that this might not happen.
September 9th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@Michael M,
I like having my city services taken care of too. And yes, property values have gone down while the cost of services has gone up, which means that we may need to raise the property tax rate at some point since our property taxes in actual dollars have gone down. But let’s be serious, even when property values were going up, there’s never “enough” money in the government’s coffers.
But what’s someone’s “fair share?” Because if it’s a 20% tax rate for you and 40% for someone making 4x what you do, then we probably have a different idea of what a “fair share” is.
And what does raising income taxes – which are federal or state taxes – on the wealthy have to do with plowing our streets (usually a city or county function) or keeping music in our high schools (local school district function) or having police and fire protection (city function)? Sure, some federal and state dollars are routed to these local entities, but the fundamental responsibility for them is from local property and sales taxes, among other revenue sources, not income taxes. (Side note: this reminds me of a Burnsville City Council candidate who talked about improvements he wanted to see in local education. That’s great, but you can’t do much more about it from City Council than you can from your living room couch.)
And really, the “Bushies”?!? That’s about as juvenile as saying, “Barack HUSSEIN Obama.” Most of us agree Bush was a flop. Let’s leave it at that and let others do the name-calling.
September 9th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Joey:
My comments were meant to be about taxes in general. Yes, I know that my federal income taxes do not (directly) pay for Burnsville city services. But whether we’re talking city, county, state, or federal, my points stand. Most people want the services but don’t want to personally pay for them. If we want to maintain our standards of service, we have to get past this and be willing to accept tax increases when necessary. Not saying I like them, but that’s the harsh reality.
It’s also a harsh reality that much of our current economic situation, especially concerning the national deficit, occurred under the watch of former President Bush, due in large part to the tax cuts for the wealthiest percentage of our populace. There is a huge disparity between the haves and the have nots in our society, and the rich keep getting richer while the middle class is disappearing. Republican tax policies, from both the Bushes and Reagan, have contributed significantly to this.
And perhaps we do have an honest disagreement about what is a “fair share” for various taxpayers. I personally believe that people who have more money can and should pay more in taxes (and in charity). If I make twice as much money as you do, I can afford to pay more to support our public services, both as a raw number and as a percentage of my income. Someone barely earning enough to pay rent and groceries doesn’t have any left over to pay more on the margin; someone earning $500,000 or more has a lot left over after paying for necessities. It gets worse, of course, when the wealthy take advantage of various credits and loopholes not available to the lower class, and end up paying less as a percentage than they might, otherwise.
Do I want the city of Burnsville to raise my taxes? Not particularly. But if we need the extra income to keep our police protection and snow plowing and such at current levels, then fine. On the other hand, if the tax increase is just to keep the mayor’s neighborhood looking pretty, then that’s another thing. Smart spending is a requirement today, but one I’m not sure Mayor Kautz is engaging in.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The council passing the maximum levy is disappointing news. Looks like Dakota county, district 196 and the state will also be looking for more revenue. A few weeks ago I participated in a phone survey of Burnsville residents concerning city spending and budget priorities. It was quite lengthy and encompassed most city services from fire and police to lawn mowing. I assume the council will use the results for upcoming spending cuts.
Anyone know when the results will be made public ?
September 9th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Michael, your points are well stated, but I dont think they stand up in our world. Our tax dollars go for hundreds or thousands of different things that dont even begin to fall under public safety, infrastructure, etc.
Dog Parks, Snowmobile trails, Winter hiking trails, bike paths, any number or religious or alternative schools and or lifestyle programs. The list goes on and on. Locally its a fact that a huge part of the increase in taxes is due to the Performing Arts Center. Or flowers in the mayors neighborhood. I could go on, but there is no point.
September 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Chad:
Your point is well taken, there is some discretionary spending that could perhaps be cut during tough times. But what is wasteful to one person might be something close to a necessity for others. For example, I don’t do a lot of winter activities (shame on me, I probably should!), so I don’t really see the need for the winter hiking and skiing trails, or the ice rinks. However, a lot of individuals and families make good use of these, and the outdoor recreation is one of the big pluses for living up here in Minnesota, compared to other states. Should we cut them because I personally don’t find them useful? Probably not.
The BPAC is another issue, of course. I’m not sure how to minimize the damage already done. If you cut funding to it, it sits even more empty and becomes a bigger financial sinkhole. You almost have to keep up funding just to make the best of a bad situation. This is a tough one, and ignoring it won’t make it go away.
Flowers in the mayor’s neighborhood however, I can definitely come out against. I’m all for community beautification, but not when the only community being beautified is within eyesight of the mayor’s condo. We definitely have a bit of a fiefdom going on here, and it seems like the only votes against are Charlie’s and Dan K’s. There’s probably some fat that can be cut there, if the right opposition could be mounted.
Bottom line, I still think we’re all too focused on cutting taxes as opposed to willingly paying for those services (essential and otherwise) that we use every day. Everything has to be paid for. The bigger debate, IMHO, should be over WHAT we’re paying for — what’s a good use of our taxpayer monies.
Here’s an example from elsewhere in the country. My wife’s brother and sister are educators in a school district in central Indiana. This district is so short on funds, and incapable of obtaining new funds via tax increases, that they’re cutting what I would consider essential programs from the schools. For example, they’ve cut music down to three “roving” teachers for all the schools in the entire district, from grade school up to high school, so that there are no dedicated music teachers, band directors, or choir directors in any individual school. They’ve closed down a special needs high school, and are essentially shutting down college prep classes, like physics, in all but one charter (pay to get in) high school. In other words, no music for anyone, and if you want to go to college, you have to pay extra.
The fix for that situation is simple — raise taxes to reinstate the cut programs. But nobody wants their taxes raised, so the kids (and ultimately the community) suffer. Fortunately, things aren’t that bad here.
I moved up here to the Twin Cities about 2 1/2 years ago. I’m paying higher taxes here than I was in Indiana. But boy, do we get a lot more in return. The streets are in better shape, snow removal is much better, the parks system is phenomenal, and on and on and on. I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth, in general. Yes, there are some things I don’t like, but not much I’d want to give up.
I guess that’s the ultimate question to ask. For those who are concerned about high taxes, what would you be willing to live without? And, equally important, what would your neighbors be willing to live without?
September 10th, 2010 at 10:27 am
MM,
First: thanks for your interesting and thoughtful comments on the discussion and avoiding having it devolve into a steaming pile of troll. I have to admit you have provided a great argument in favor of higher taxes.
But, as great as it is and even after careful consideration of what one person’s necessities may be, you have to admit that the simple example of park maintenance (running a creek in front of the PAC for kids to splash around in vs public safety (lack of funding for the K9 unit) is an easy one to make the decision on.
No, parks will never, ever, ever, ever take a front seat to police protection. As an avid outdoor enthusiast and someone who spent years fighting to open parks at the county and state level to an outdoor activity enjoyed by a relative small few, I have to admit that they need to be the first things left unmaintained when there is no money for other more important tax-funded public resources.
Let’s take your example of maintaining winter trails… Why are tax dollars going to do this? If snowmobilers or XC skiers want to use them then they should band together, form an organization, find external funding sources, and then maintain the trails themselves. Yes, this is a burden on the citizen and yes there are going to be problems in getting the government agencies to permit this–that’s life. But if a group really wants maintained trails these are the things that need to be done. (think Adopt a Highway but for winter trails). At the end of the day if it is important enough for you then you need to realize that it can be done w/o direct tax dollar input.
So, to be perfectly frank, I suggest that those who want to spend time and energy pushing for a higher tax rate should instead redirect those energies to drafting legislation which is friendly to voluntary citizen input (physical and monetary) rather than taking the easier route and making it mandatory instead.
September 10th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Minnesota operates under a progressive income tax system. As such, people that earn more, pay more taxes than those that earn less. So I’m not sure what the issue is there. In general, the federal government works that way as well though Minnesota is above the national average in tax revenue.
What Minnesota, and Burnsville need to do is take a hard look at their competition. Look at what it costs to operate a business in other cities, or other states. Then take a hard and honest look at the benefits to operating a business in burnsville/minnesota vs anywhere else. With that information, you then can identify a “reasonable” tax burden the population can sustain before they will be motivated to go some where else.
What we have in Minnesota isn’t there because we taxes are low. Minnesota is 12th nationally in state/local tax burden percentage. Minnesota ranks 43rd in the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index (43 is bad, not good). Minnesota’s highest income tax rate is ranked 9th highest. (rate cuts in at an income level of $74,780) Minnesota’s Corporate Income Tax rate is ranked 3rd highest. And we rank 46th in federal dollars received.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html
We damn well better have some of the best things a state can have considering all the taxes we pay. Taking all of the current taxes we have into account we have to be careful of increasing taxes further. We need to take a hard look at what we are doing with the taxes we collect today, and determine if we would be better off, in the long run to hold the line, or cut taxes, vs increasing them.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/37.html
September 10th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
First of all, many of my neighbors are out of jobs and are hanging by a financial thread. They are willing, and ARE living without quite a lot right now.
The example of XC skiing was brought up. I cross-country ski and I live a 1/2 mile from Alimagnet. I walk in, put on the skis, and away I go on the groomed trails.
By contrast, in most places around the State (e.g. Como Park), I am required to have a Minnesota Ski Pass. $6 one-day, $20 season. Loosely enforced, but cross-country skiers are largely the types that would pay even in a box on the honor system.
Do I love to have free groomed ski trails right by my house? Absolutely.
Do I think it’s realistic/sustainable for the City to be offering this for free? Absolutely not.
Through things like that, my YMCA membership, Cannon Valley Trail membership and other things, I gladly volunteer to give up “free” amenities and also help others who can’t afford to enjoy them.
We Burnsville residents live in a community whose government, time and again, has proven that they operate in a world of “nice to haves”, luxuries, and perfection. I will not stand idly by and accept these people jacking up taxes to maintain this philosophy, especially with homes continuing to foreclose, people continuing to be laid off, and families being devastated by their finances going to ruin.
On a related note, can someone explain what the city’s $25,000 contribution to the “ITASCA Group” (some sort of economic development association that doesn’t even show up on Google) is getting the City? It’s in the half-million dollar Economic Development levy with the PAC construction bond payoff, included in the 5.6% levy. I wonder if the City could have lived without it for a year or two (or forever, frankly). Is it a better spending choice than a police K9?
Michael, I’m glad you think we have it so good here compared to Indiana. I had it great when I had $100,000 more equity in my home. But the community amenties you mention (and my personal equity) were built upon decisions and strategies born of the BEST economy in the history of the country. Now that we’re not in that same economy, it’s time to adjust the strategies and spending accordingly.
Everyone else outside of government has.
September 10th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Great discussion.
Again Michael, I respect your ideas and points. I guess that the fundamental difference is you seem willing to trust that our elected officials can be trusted to make great decisions with our money.
To piggyback on what MSPD said, I use the dog park on a regular basis. Love it. But, if the choice is between essential services and nice to have services, I am NOT going to make my own check box for “All of the above.” Just as we are all adjusting to a new reality of living within our means, our elected officials need to learn to say no from time to time.
Not to repeat old posts, but the key difference between the govt and private enterprise is that EVERY SINGLE UNIT of our govt has a single mandate. Spend EVERY SINGLE PENNY in the budget. Its the mirror opposite of how private enterprise is run.
Ever had a sales job with govt customers at the end of the fiscal year?!
September 10th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Chad, why yes I do have several govt customers. It is not just at the end of the fiscal year that I love life! In fact, I think there are several contractors in Burnsville that are in the road reconstruction business, Performing Art Center Management Business and Performing Arts Center Building business and they love the City of Burnsville because government is lousy at managing subcontractors, pays them bonuses that would never be paid in the private sector. The government definition of “substantially complete” means something completely different and government rarely implements stringent contractual terms and conditions with these contractors and even if the contractor breaches the poorly written contract they are not sued or made to deliver a suitable remedy and implement the remedy to the breach.
September 11th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Woah, I just figured out the solution! The city should just take over all of the liquor stores. Boom! Instant revenue.
September 11th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Burnsville Fire Muster fire truck parade today: 21 minutes from first truck to last. A huge difference from years past. Also, bingo, fitness walk, 5K run and medallion hunt were canceled.
September 11th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
This is a good discussion. Know, however, that I’m not necessarily arguing for higher taxes; that’s never been a popular opinion. I’m just commenting on how most people, not necessarily those on this blog, are inconsistent in their views on taxes vs. services received. I’ve seen too many instances where popular demand for lower taxes has resulted in decreased number and level of services, which is equally unpopular — and perhaps more harmful to the overall community.
The real need is to reach an acceptable compromise between what the populace wants and needs versus how much it wants to pay. Most people want a lot and don’t want to pay much. That’s a logical inconsistency.
Then there’s the related issue of how much we trust our elected officials to spend our money wisely. This one actually should be simpler to deal with. If our officials do not spend our money wisely, they should be voted out of office at the next available opportunity.
That’s if, of course, people actually vote according to their own self interests. Elevating this above the local level, I’m continually amazed at how lower and middle class voters somewhat consistently support politicians, mainly but not exclusively Republicans, who forward legislation that financially benefits only upper class and corporate citizens. Why in the world would anyone making $20,000, $30,000, even $100,000 a year support a tax cut that only benefits those making more than $200,000 a year? Why would the average citizen oppose estate taxes (the so-called “death tax”) that only hits the most wealthy among us? It makes no sense to me. If we all voted exclusively in our own financial best interests, we’d have a much more progressive Federal tax rate, with a more highly-taxed upper bracket.
But back to the local level, I agree with Bill that we get a lot of nice free perks in our area. Maybe we should start charging those that use these perks. Or maybe we continue to fund them from general taxes, on the grounds that doing so increases the quality of life for the community in general. That’s a good debate to have.
To Mikeh’s point, yes we do have a relatively high tax rate in Minnesota. But it funds a quality school system, great parks and recreation, a solid social safety net, and more. That’s the compromise residents here have agreed upon, and I’m willing to live with it. If you’d prefer to have fewer services and a lesser quality of life, in return for a lower tax rate, there are plenty of other states that offer that option.
And as to the higher tax rates affecting the business climate, Minnesota has a ton of large local businesses, from 3M to Target; many other states (like my old home state of Indiana) don’t. I can tell you, the quality of life offered here attracts more businesses than might be turned off by the tax rate. Businesses look at the entire package when they decide where to settle; quality of life, quality schools, and all that are important factors considered. We must be doing something right.
All in all, as a relatively new resident to the Twin Cities area, I don’t have many complaints. I do, however, think that Burnsville is a spectacularly poorly run little town, and would love to see changes made — starting at the top. This place could be a lot better than it is; I don’t know why residents have kept Kautz in office this long.
Do I support the tax increase Kautz and company are pushing? No, primarily because I have reservations about how current funds are being distributed. If I thought the mayor and city council were doing the best possible job at allocating spending, with little or no waste or favoring personal projects, I’d be more in favor of raising taxes to cover a shortfall. As is, based on what I’ve seen from Kautz and company, I have to wonder if the budget shortfall is due to mismanagement and misallocation of funds. In other words, I don’t trust that the mayor is spending our money wisely — and given that, I don’t want to give her any more money to waste.
So there.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:28 am
3M and Target corp have been here all along. Business look at sites that allow them to make the most money. What resources they need to do that go into their choice as well as the cost to operate in the area. I’m not saying our taxes are too high, but I am saying that willy nilly increasing of taxes for corporations or high income earners could be detrimental.
There are no simple answers to solving the budget issues today. And anyone willing to throw corporations and high income earners under the bus to pander to the general public isn’t qualified to hold a seat in the legislature, city council, or be governor.
Why do people only making 18k a year vote for people that want to give tax breaks to people making $250k a year? Some having to do with the fact that in America, anyone has a chance to earn big dollars. Some having to do with the fact they don’t trust government with money, regardless of who’s it is. Some having to do with a feeling that if I can’t get free food, or free medical care, I don’t want to be paying for someone else to get free food or medical care.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:22 am
“Why do people only making 18k a year vote for people that want to give tax breaks to people making $250k a year? Some having to do with the fact that in America, anyone has a chance to earn big dollars.”
Wishful thinking, but I know it exists. It’s part of the whole “American Dream” thing, I suppose. But it’s illogical, and perhaps one of the few instances of people acting out of future concern instead of immediate gratification. Why act this way in this instance and not in others, such as saving for retirement?
“Some having to do with the fact they don’t trust government with money, regardless of who’s it is.”
Perhaps, but it’s still not acting in the average taxpayer’s self-interest. Or are you suggesting that these citizens would prefer to see zero taxes and zero government spending? Who pays for the roads and the schools, then?
“Some having to do with a feeling that if I can’t get free food, or free medical care, I don’t want to be paying for someone else to get free food or medical care.”
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense at all, at least regarding tax rates and brackets and such. I know that some folks resent the social safety net (my father is one of these; he calls recipients of these payments “freeloaders”), but what does that have to do with higher tax rates for high-income earners? This is apples and oranges; one doesn’t have anything to do with the other.
I do sense that many folks resent paying taxes and resent having those taxes go to pay for certain things they don’t like, whether that’s the arts or welfare payments or whatever. (Myself, I’m not that fond of my taxes paying for huge military spending.) But what’s the solution? I think it’s a combination of more responsible spending (and that includes cuts in all sorts of wasteful programs, including those sacred cow programs that benefit the huge military industrial complex) and a more progressive tax system that doesn’t penalize the middle class.
Yes, I think the rich should pay more. They do in most other countries. They used to in this country. They can afford to. You and I can’t. That’s the bottom line, at least for me.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:24 am
No matter how much money you have you always need more to pay for the basic necessities.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Agreed, Bill. And the definition of “rich” changes depending on how much money you make, too.
September 13th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Michael,
I still think your ideas are well thought out, and well defended, but simply not realistic. You dont come out and say it, but your tone leans quite a ways toward liberal.
Here is one of my big issues, and what I think is one of the big flaws in the whole social safety net idea. I know three grown men, until the last year or so all comfortably middle class. Certainly not upper middle class, but grown men with houses and cars and families. All fathers with grown children. All three are in their mid to late 50′s. All three lost jobs in the last year. First, I can’t imagine how daunting it would be to try to start over at that age, but the very disappointing thing to me is that all three are basically not looking for jobs. They looked at first, but once they found that they can get unemployment for nearly two years and collect more money than they would make by settling for lower paying jobs, they basically quit looking.
Its a sad situation, and I have a feeling its being played out all over this country. As with so many things our govt does, the idea is probably sound, but the execution is horribly lacking. Over and over our govt proves to me that they simply cant be trusted to use my money to implement programs for the “greater good.”
September 13th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Chad, it depends on when they lost their jobs, but they’re probably not going to get two years of UI. As it stands now, you get the standard six months or so (from the state), and can qualify for the federal extension if you run out, but that is set to expire at the end of November. The two years of UI scenario has gone away. Further, keep in mind that Joe Taxpayer doesn’t pay for the state UI; that comes from a tax on businesses. I don’t know offhand about the federal extension, though.
As for settling for lower-paying jobs — can they afford to? And would companies actually hire them for these positions (i.e. have they turned down offers)? I know a lot of people who work in HR, and they are wary of bringing on someone for a position who is clearly overqualified, since they’ll just leave when they get something better. And then there’s the age issue on top of that, which some unscrupulous employers use as an excuse not to hire applicants, though they would never admit it.
I guess what I’m saying is, do you know the situation is as it may appear?
September 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Tim,
The whole overqualification thing is ridiculous. EVERYONE with half a brain will leave when they get offered something better and by the simple fact of having a new job means you are going to learn new skills which can then be applied elsewhere for more money.
HR is so ridiculous sometimes.
September 13th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I’ll go back to the item I quoted that started this diversion.
I pointed out that the people who have more money (and I assume when you say more money, you mean people in the highest tax bracket) already pay more taxes. I also posit that care must be taken when considering adding tax to the upper income levels simply due to their income.
Since this statement still came up.
I though the next question from such a statement should be posed. i.e. How much more is exactly enough?
I’m not trying to say that wealthy people shouldn’t pay more. Much of the wealth that individuals and corporations amass wouldn’t otherwise be possible in any other country. Either due to regulation or our better infrastructure, our education system, our health care system. America is a place were wealthy people can become wealthier, and because of that, America should get a piece of their wealth. We just need to be very careful in what piece that would be. Solving our governments issues isn’t as simple as just collecting more tax. Those that try to imply or clearly state that they can solve our problems if they just tax the rich more, are those that I can not take seriously. They are oversimplifying the issue.
September 13th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
This is a good debate. Good to having it.
Chad, I’m not sure of the specifics of the folks you mention, but most people are not better off accepting unemployment. For most people, it’s less than they were earning previously. Plus, as noted, it’s temporary. It’s a safety net, not compensation.
Mikeh, I don’t mean to appear simplistic. I don’t think shifting the tax burden more towards higher earners will solve all problems, but it will help to make things more fair, IMHO — and, perhaps, help save the disappearing middle class. Nor is the solution simply collecting more taxes. We need to spend our tax money more wisely, in ways that benefit the average American citizen. I keep coming back to the funds we pay for foreign aid, to the military industrial complex, and such — spending that is pretty much institutionalized by now, but in most cases wholly unnecessary, especially when people are going hungry. I’d rather feed and clothe the poor, educate our young, pave our roads, and such than keep buying bigger bombs and sending bribe money to countless other countries. But that’s just me; other people might have different priorities.
Getting back to the local level, how better can Burnsville allocate its funds? Frankly, I think we have one butt ugly little community here, and would love to have it look a little nicer, more like Eagan or Savage, but is now the right time to do that? Probably not. Nor should we be worrying about the continued beautification of the mayor’s playground, AKA the Heart of the City. Beefing up police funds, yes. Replacing burnt-out streetlights, yes. Flowers on HOA lightpoles? Not so much.
September 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
It isn’t always ridiculous. Hiring people costs money, and as such it’s in a company’s best financial interest to reduce turnover. Now, you’re right that people are generally going to leave if they get a better offer (though it depends, since people can have motivations besides money). But that’s going to happen faster for some people than others. If you think person A is more likely to be hired away than person B, and person B can do the job just as well (and will probably be content with less money), why not hire person B?
And I disagree that a new type of position is going to necessarily equal more money — someone with an MBA who worked as a financial analyst isn’t going to become a more valuable financial analyst by, say, managing a McDonald’s. Employers usually couldn’t care less about experience outside your field, or experience below the level at which you were last at. I think it’s short-sighted, personally, since a lot of job experience can be translated and applied across industries, but that’s how it’s done, and it’s what people have to work with.
September 13th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Tim
They are certainly unique situations, but I don’t think its a case of things not being as they appear. One guy is a relative. I know his situation well, and that he initially tried hard to find a job, but once the unemployment checks started coming in and he had a few interviews but nothing came of it, his effort level went way down. This is a guy who has been employed his whole life and is college educated. He is in a different part of the country, and it seems things are worse there than here, but I don’t think things are great anywhere.
The second is the father of my roommate from college. This is a guy who worked his butt off to put his kid through school, had a good job as a regional sales rep for a national company food company, and was laid off. He will have a hard time finding another job, and when I saw him this weekend his comment was “All the offers I have had were for less money than I am getting in unemployment.” He is also in a different state.
The third person is a former co-worker. Just another variation on the same story, although he is the oldest of the three. He is right around 60, with half a dozen grandkids. Its sad really. He is a career sales people, and right now I don’t see much out there for sales jobs, and, as you mentioned, the challenges multiply for an older person. I really don’t think its just “unscrupulous companies” as you mentioned. I think there is a certain tier of jobs (head of household jobs to steal a phrase) in the middle management or professional sales job that have a very real bias against people as they age. From a business point of view its easy to understand. If it takes multiple years to build up a book of business and develop a territory, why would you hire a guy who is 60, 61, etc.
Anyway, sorry for the long post. My point was really that I don’t think these guys are alone. My observation has been that due to the “social safety net” many people who might have already gone back to work in lower paying jobs are simply opting to collect unemployment. And regardless of where they money is coming from, its all coming out of our pockets someplace.
September 13th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
You guys are too fast. Michael, I agree with most of your post. Its about spending money more wisely in the end.
I would however point out a little bit of an inconsistency. You mentioned foreign aid. While I happen to agree 100% that our money should be spent here before its spent overseas, there are starving people all over the world. If the poor and middle class in our country deserve help from the rich, the same can be said for people around the world. Careful where you draw the line.
I also cringe a little bit when I see you use the word fair. Fair, by definition would be everyone paying an equal share, an equal percentage, or paying for what they use. None of those definitions of fair begins to describe a sliding scale where you pay more as you make more.
I also cant agree with you about the unemployment benefits. No matter what they are meant to be, the fact is they are a disincentive to work. We could move on to welfare and probably disagree there as well.
Tim, your example of a financial analyst going to manage a McDonald’s is brilliant, but I think right now its more realistic that these people are being offered jobs making fries, not managing the store.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Chad, thanks for the additional background. I don’t think they’re alone either, but nor do I think they’re representative of the people getting it. The Federal Reserve research that’s been done on this issue puts the impact of extended UI at anywhere from .4% to 1% based on the study — hardly enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Michael M, I pretty much agree with you on everything. :)
September 13th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
It’s interesting how some people are intrinsically opposed to government assistance. Like I wrote earlier, my father is one of those, so I’m used to all the arguments. He worked hard all his life, owned his own business and worked 60-hour weeks, and it really torqued him off to see others not working as hard (or at all) and getting what he viewed as a “free handout.” I got my work ethic from him, and to this day appreciate that a good income comes from hard work — or at least it should.
Yes, there are people out there who don’t work that hard yet still expect a big paycheck. These folks torque me off, too; you have to put in the time to generate the results. There are also folks who play the system and somehow or another learn how to live off of government subsidies; I don’t like these folks, either.
But there is also a large and growing segment of the population who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or underemployed. I know too many people who have been out of work for months and years. They keep looking, but there’s nothing to be found, at least within their areas of expertise. Some of these people are teachers, some are ex-Northwest mechanics, some are salesmen… it’s all across the board. I suppose these people could try to find a job at Starbucks or Best Buy, if these places were hiring and wanted to hire someone over- or differently-qualified. But these jobs aren’t always available, or readily available, and until something comes up, they need help paying the mortgage and putting food on the table.
It’s not that these people aren’t hard working or aren’t trying to find a job; it’s just that there’s not much out there today. They’re not lazy; they’re just victims of today’s economy.
Should we not help these folks out in their hour of need? Not offering assistance doesn’t sound very charitable to me, certainly not very Christian (if you want to think of things that way). It doesn’t benefit anyone in the community if these folks have to fold up shop and walk away from their mortgages. A little help at just the right time might make all the difference in the world.
I’d rather help my neighbor down the street while he’s in between jobs than give Bill Gates a tax cut or pump more bailout money into huge corporations. Some people need the money more than others.
(And Chad, when I talk about assistance to other countries, I’m thinking more of the military and similar money we hand out like it’s lemondade; I have always been a supporter of genuine humanitarian assistance to the needy anywhere in the world.)
September 13th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Right and that’s when human beings, throughout eternity, either survived (by innovation or some other self-made miracle), or died off. We’re not doing ANYONE (and this includes you and me and the people on assistance as well) any favors by supporting those who apparently cannot support themselves when they are physically and mentally capable of doing so.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
That’s pretty harsh, Bill. Would you feel differently if you were laid off and, no matter how hard you looked, couldn’t find anything?
That’s the situation more and more good people are finding. Yes, there are some bums out there that abuse the system, but the safety net is there for those who really can’t find work. As I said, it’s not because they’re lazy, it’s because the nature of our economy is changing. There really are situations where no work is to be found. What should we do then? Do we not have an obligation to help those in real need?
September 13th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
It would be a little hypocritical of me to say one thing and do another wouldn’t it? So no, I wouldn’t feel differently. In fact, the one time I was laid off I didn’t claim unemployment, lived off what I had left in savings and then searched in an ever widening circle until I could find a job–which ended up being in Minnesota.
There are ALWAYS jobs available. They may be really undesirable and seemingly beneath someone who is college educated and has worked for 25+ years making $100,000+ but they do exist.
—
And to talk a bit about the problem getting a job when your job history is one which HR managers find undesirable… I remember a conversation I had last fall with a woman who lived here and moved to the Iron Range and who was told flat-out: do not add your college degree to your resume up here as it will do more harm than good. Perhaps that needs to be applied in more places than just the Iron Range?
September 13th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Bill, that’s admirable of you how you handled things when you were laid off. I’m not sure everyone has that fortitude or the built-up savings (or the time involved) to do it the same way.
And I take issue of your stating flat-out that jobs are always available. That’s not the case today, it really isn’t. I’ve heard too many stories of dozens or hundreds of people applying for a single low-wage position to believe that there’s still a job for everyone. When employers have so many people looking and few positions to fill, they’re going to find any excuse to drop someone from the list, whether that be age, prior experience, or whatever.
Times are tough. There are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available. Do the math — an increasing number of people are being left out.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
“I also cringe a little bit when I see you use the word fair. Fair, by definition would be everyone paying an equal share, an equal percentage, or paying for what they use. None of those definitions of fair begins to describe a sliding scale where you pay more as you make more.”
I have removed the word “fair” from my vocabulary due to it only creates controversy unless it is supported by additional language you are never going to come to an agreement.
Chad, as you mention above the US Federal Income Tax is a progressive tax, the more in income one receives, the higher the percentage of tax taken for each successively higher tier of income. Not sure how anyone can make a statement that that is “fair”. One could say that the more income one has the more discretionary income one may have.
My concern around this discussion is that the Federal Government is eliminating the incentive for its citizens to earn more money as “the more you make the more they take.” I personally like to think that if I am going to work harder and make more money that I would at least like to enjoy the fruits of my labor vs handing over more and more to the government.
I understand that some form of charity / social service programs are necessary and important however, government is expanding its role as the distributor of charity through the tax code.
I invite everyone who does not think that they are paying enough in taxes to complete the line on their tax forms that will give more of their wealth to the government than the tax code dictates. Human nature, such as it is, seems to indicate that not many will take me up on my invitation.
September 14th, 2010 at 9:10 am
When I see statements like this, I am reminded of the softening of our society. Bill hits it on the nail and highlights one of the linchpins of American Society. If you are willing to do it, you can achieve it. Americans have become too complacent, and too susceptible to economy and localized employment trends. You have all of America to look for a job. Americans have become unwilling to struggle, unwilling to lift themselves up, or when necessary lower themselves down. Instead they want the government to keep them afloat.
The national unemployment rate is 9.6% (not good)
Minnesota unemployment rate is 6.8%, lower than the 8.9 in March of 2009.
South Dakota’s unemployment rate is 4.3%
Nebraska’s unemployment rate is 4.7%
New Hampshire’s unemployment rate is 5.8%
North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.5%
Vermont’s unemployment rate is 5.7%
If I was looking for work right now, and I could sell my house and not have to pay anything in. (I.e. I could put it on the market, and get it to sell at or more than I owe) I’d be looking for work in the Dakota’s or Nebraska. Any of those my cost of living should be lower, and if I can clear anything on my home I might be able to take advantage of the housing market and get a home, rather than having to spend a couple years renting.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rates
September 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Mikeh:
I’m not sure you’re looking at things from a practical standpoint. You say you could sell your house and move to an area with better employment possibilities. Really? There are houses in my area (Burnsville) that have been on the market for a year or more, no takers. If you think you can sell your house quickly and for a decent price, you may be mistaken.
As a practical matter, then, selling and moving may not be doable, or at least not quickly doable. And many people can’t or don’t want to move for family reasons; a family is not as mobile as a single person, and not all single people are that mobile, either.
Interestingly, economists are starting to come to the conclusion that home ownership is bad for the economy in that it discourages mobility. Renters can more easily move to follow the changing job market than can home owners. That’s a big change in thought.
Back to the topic at hand, however, the idea that Americans can accomplish anything they put their minds to — well, it’s good in theory but becoming less and less achievable over time. I’d like to believe that’s the case, but I know too many smart, hard working people who have fallen on hard times. It’s not as easy as it used to be.
And as to the tax rate thing, I suggest you do a little reading on what Paul Krugman calls “The Great Divergence.” (I like the series of articles currently running at http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/) It’s the growing disparity between the wealthy and the everyone else. Now, it’s not entirely due to changes in tax rates (there are lots of factors), but as it now stands, the richest 1% of Americans account for 24% of the nation’s income. That’s the greatest income inequality in our country’s history, even more than the rate during the robber baron era and the so-called gilded age.
There is something inherently wrong with the way things are today for the rich to keep getting richer, at the expense of everyone else. This can partly be solved via manipulation of tax rates (essentially redistributing part of the wealth), but there are some underlying structural issues that definitely need to be addressed. The middle class is rapidly disappearing, propped up only by two-income families, illusive home equity, and massive credit card debt. When one income disappears, home values fall, and credit cards max out, there’s not much there there. We have major economic issues, folks, and just “working harder” isn’t going to make much of a dent for most people.
September 14th, 2010 at 11:12 am
So many tangents and so many different thoughts and ideas. Sticking to my original thought (or one of them), Michael, we agree on the large number of seemingly employable people who are out of work. What we disagree on is how hard they are actually looking for work, and the impetus for that decision.
I have seen, personally (as described above), hard working people who have had stable job histories stretching back 30+ years step out of the work force. It is a question of perspective. I dont doubt, as you say, that it is hard for them to find a job. I also dont doubt that they would be forced to check thier ego’s and maybe take a job as an assistant manager at McDonalds instead of a financial analyst at Ameriprise. But, what I see happening, and I think the people you know are as guilty as the people I know, is people saying, no thanks. They are making a choice, and they may deny it if asked, to accept unemployment instead of taking a step down and accepting a lower paying, more menial job. Remove the social safety net and you will be amazed at the number of these people who “find” jobs quickly.
I am all for helping people when they are down, but we have crossed the line and I truly believe that we are giving people reasons not to work. Honestly, why would you take a pay cut of thousands of dollars to go work at McDonalds when you could get continue on unemployment and make more.
I am all for helping people. I just dont think the govt as the primary employer or charity provider is the way to efficiently go about it.
Revamp the whole system. You are unemployed. Instead of a check, you get money (paid directly to the bank or landlord) for your rent/mortgage. You get money (paid directly to the utility company) to keep your light and heat on. You get govt bread, cheese, milk, meat, and vegtables. You get free courses at local community colleges. You get access to people who will help you write a resume and coach you on interviewing. Etc, Etc, Etc.
September 15th, 2010 at 7:07 am
From today’s Star Tribune:
“Mayor Elizabeth Kautz described the proposal as prudent, saying the city already has retrenched and needs to provide some services. “We froze salaries, made cuts, laid people off,” she said. “The state has taken everything away from us and we get nothing.”
September 15th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I wonder if dedicating the future revenue from the landfill, future EDA funds and the future tax revenue from TIF districts as they were paid off to the health and well being of the Burnsville Performing Arts Center was part of what she calls retrenchment? Please Mayor Kautz, won’t you respond with your own post?
September 15th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Could be wrong, but I dont think it is the states job to pay for the Mayors toys.
September 24th, 2010 at 6:40 am
I wonder if Burnsville is ready, financially and in terms of staff, to deal with the flooding situation that Truman and Owatonna and Pine Island are dealing with today?
From the Star Tribune today: “River monitors on Thursday were projecting that the Minnesota would rise 15 feet by Tuesday, to a point close to its fifth-highest level on record.
“The south metro is going to be a problem,” Buan [a hydrologist with NOAA] said. “This is extraordinarily unusual for this time of year.”
September 24th, 2010 at 7:45 am
[...] been covering a lot of taxes lately. Burnsville and Dakota County are both raising them and many others are either staying flat or dropping [...]
September 26th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Congrats to Whit on comment #500!
September 26th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Aw, shucks.
So….WhatdoIget? (Hint: I would really like a “I’m a Lazylightning.org groopie” window cling. Well, I would really like a trip to Hawaii, but considering that’s not very likely, I’ll gladly take the window cling. I’d ask for a bumper sticker, but that implies a bit more of a permanent devotion, and I can be fickle. You could really tick me off some day, by say, expounding on the virtues of water chestnuts or (gasp) Pepsi products, and then I’d have to scrape the bumper sticker off, and that is a pain to do. So I’ll take a window cling.)
September 26th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
http://www.cafepress.com/lazylightning.429189666 — enjoy.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Ungrateful wretch :)
September 26th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
497 comments more and we’ll talk ;-)
September 27th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Hey MSPD: 6 more comments from you and you could make Bill eat his words and pony up some LL swag. Glad I could tee this one up for ya. ;)
October 1st, 2010 at 7:31 am
[...] article in the Pioneer Press, Farmington’s City Council is doing things the right way, unlike the majority of Burnsville’s City Council who want to raise taxes half to pay for the floundering Burnsville Performing Arts Center and the other half to avoid [...]
December 13th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
[...] City Council met to vote on the 2011 tax levy for city residents (previous coverage: here and here). A few residents stood before the council in an attempt to sway their opinion away from [...]
December 31st, 2010 at 11:13 am
[...] Burnsville City Council Moves to Raise Taxes in 2011 [...]
March 15th, 2011 at 7:02 am
[...] so many other area cities requiring tax and fee increases to fund operations, some may consider this to be a bold but welcome move. However others, especially those who clearly [...]
August 10th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] elected mostly to help pay off the debt she happily accumulated by shoving through the BPAC and make sure the city doesn’t demoralize the staff while they demoralize their residents she cares for so very [...]