The shutdown of Minnesota state government was partially due to the fact that the Minnesota GOP members wanted everyone to share in the burden of budget issues while the DFL believed the richest Minnesotans should be the ones shouldering the burden. With the GOP coming out on top of the shutdown now everyone is sharing in the burden of the state’s budget woes and because of this the cuts at the state level are making their way down to the local level. Unfortunately instead of making the service cuts required to match the lack of funding provided by the state, two local counties are instead passing the costs on to the taxpayers.
From a recent Savage Pacer article about Scott County’s decision-making in this regard:
After years of covering state reductions, County Board members appear unwilling – and in their minds, unable – to eat such a large tax increase set in motion by the state Legislature.
“Someone else is painting us into the corner,” said Scott County Board Chairman Tom Wolf of Credit River Township, who was elected on an anti-tax increase platform.
From a similar Pioneer Press article about Dakota County:
“A great deal of burden has been put on local government to solve the state’s financial budgets,” Schouweiler said. “It’s unfortunate the Legislature chose to increase property taxes (for people)…whether or not they can afford to pay the increase.”
Do you personally believe that the counties should have passed the increases on to the taxpayers or do you think that they should have made more cuts to services to make up the difference? Do you think that it’s fair for the counties to blame the legislature for these increases when it was the counties who were directly benefiting from the money being doled out by the taxpayers through the state? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
September 13th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Is it really a “tax increase” that will cost people more money? Or can it be viewed as an adjustment to the taxes because of decreased property values, that brings what people are paying up to a previous amount?
September 13th, 2011 at 7:31 am
If I could solve everything wish one magic wish, it would be for a simple ten question common sense test that all voters would have to pass before getting their ballot. Not political questions, just a test to see if they can think for themselves. It could be taken ahead of each election. Once you pass the test you are good to vote in subsequent elections. Eliminate the ignorant voters and maybe America can make some progress to benefit all of us. By “Ignorant” I’m not saying stupid, it means the un-informed voters and those voters who don’t care about issues. Some people vote for a person based on looks or some other ridiculous reason instead of what the issues are. Another solution would be that if you did not pay taxes the previous year, you can not vote. Pay taxes and get a vote in how the money is spent. Then there would be real hope and change.
September 13th, 2011 at 8:09 am
sui generis, it is partially due to that but in reality it’s due to the fact that the state was subsidizing the counties all of this time and the legislature has decided to severely cut back on those subsidies.
Now, the state is saying we’ll only pay on certain properties and you have to cover the rest. Instead of Dakota or Scott saying that they’ll cut services to the appropriate levels (i.e. those at which the state wasn’t subsidizing through its own taxation which is what the Republicans feel should be done) they’re going to the media stating that they’re proud of the level of services at libraries, etc, etc and want to keep them that way–at the expense of the taxpayer.
Now, if the taxpayers had voted for a platform where increased service levels due to higher taxes was preferred this would be all well and good. Unfortunately for Dakota County (I am not nearly as familiar with Scott) this was not the case and we’re getting put to the screws financially because they refuse to make the tough decisions they were elected to make.
September 13th, 2011 at 8:18 am
I’m tired of the blame game. Local gov blames the state, state blames the Federal…Stop all the blaming and do your jobs.
Stop spending more money than we have.
September 13th, 2011 at 8:36 am
Marty,
I would love to see the 10 questions on your qualified to vote test. If it does not eliminate the 30% of voters that would automatically vote for either Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann for president, then you have the wrong questions.
lefty
September 13th, 2011 at 8:48 am
Marty, those ideas are, at best, unconstitutional. A test would be another version of a poll tax. We tried that. Such a test would create many more problems than it solves. Here is a short list: 1) Who determines what is “common sense”? That is a very subjective thing to measure. 2) The test will be non-political, but about the “issues.” That is not possible. 3) A test would not prevent anyone from voting for the best looking candidate. We all take appearance into account, if you know it or not. ……….
As for the tax criteria, how much tax and what type would you need to pay? Everyone pays some tax. They are everywhere: gas pump, cell phone and utility bills, prepared food, goods and services, passed on to the consumer by businesses. We tried this too and it doesn’t work.
The only criteria for voting should be age and citizenship. Ever citizen in this country must have a voice in how it is governed. If not, those who feel they do not have a political path with take up arms. That is what happened in America.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Commissioner Schouweiler’s statement in the PP Press article is a bit perplexing – “Up until now, the county has made budget reductions by eliminating expenses in areas that weren’t necessarily evident to residents” – she continues
But making future cuts could mean changes at libraries, parks and other nonmandated county programs.
“In the past, we’ve tried to stay away from that,” she said. “We really take a lot of pride in those areas. We would hate to start cutting away in those areas.”
Well commissioner Nancy; some tough choices will need to be made ongoing. I’m sure it’s been a blast being a commissioner over the last decade when the bubble money came in so fast the county had trouble spending it – but the times they are a changing -
September 13th, 2011 at 9:57 am
I’m not sure that these cuts the commissioners are supposed to be doing are just the low hanging fruit of libraries, parks, etc which would be good candidates for cuts but instead are ones for public safety and schools.
If these wonderful Republican tax cutting heroes at the state weren’t so hung up on making sure that Planned Parenthood was undercut and that unions need to be neutered I’d have more confidence that they really want reform. Instead we just get the same bunch of yahoos who’s only purpose is to obstruct rather than compromise instead of being LEADERS and acknowledging that sometimes you can’t get all that you want.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:01 am
@Marty
If I fail that test you propose and can’t vote does that mean I don’t need to pay taxes anymore? If so, mark me down as ignorant. Also I disagree with this statement, “Minnesota GOP members wanted everyone to share in the burden of budget issues while the DFL believed the richest Minnesotans should be the ones shouldering the burden.” It probably should read, The Minnesota GOP wants to cut bloated inefficient services to meet the budget whereas the Minnesota DFL wants to tax the richest Minnesotans to maintain/improve underfunded beneficial services.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:06 am
They have a majority and thus the ability to do so–yet, here we sit with very few service cuts. Honestly, I believe that we need tax increases and severe service level cuts to balance the budget. But hey, what do I know? I didn’t run or get elected by people who don’t know the basics about the way the economy operates.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Are there very few service cuts or very few service cuts that you’ve personally noticed? That’s a key distinction. I don’t think PCAs who are coping with a 20% income cut would say this is easy or painless.
The assertion that the DFL wanted the rich to shoulder the gap is a bit misguided, as well. Dayton campaigned on and initially pushed for about 50:50 in tax hikes on the wealthy to cuts in programs. Late in the game it was more like 20:80 and in the end it was 0:100.
I’m glad the unconstitutional voting requirements are meeting some resistance. What’s next, you have to own x number of preferred shares of a defense contractor?
September 13th, 2011 at 10:36 am
What would happen if we eliminated all entitlements, paying only for the things that we use like roads, police and Cascade Bay?
September 13th, 2011 at 10:51 am
This bait-and-switch has been going on for a long time. And since city and county issues just don’t hold the interest of the average voter, it will probably go on for even longer.
As to wanting to change the voting laws because people are ignorant about what’s going on, as one of those people who DON’T pay property taxes, much of my life is busy with the every day problems of getting by when you don’t have a lot of money. It was downright frenetic when I had kids at home. Fortunately, I had kids who were interested in politics, instead of sports. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the bait-and-switch game myself.
I would like to see a more concerted effort in the schools toward educating the students to be more discerning voters and consumers. But there seems to be a trend now toward making ‘em dumb and gullible. Gee, wonder who’s behind that.
And to add, as has been mentioned before, I pay other taxes besides the property tax, and as a former military spouse who raised her children alone much of the time while her husband was serving his country, I very much resent anybody trying to qualify the American citizen’s right to vote.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
The wasteful spending in Government has always been there to some degree.
All I said was “I wish” and people jump to conclusions and try to make me sound like a fascist. The law once stated that to become a citizen, therefore earning the right to vote, one had to pass a test on citizenship. You needed to have means to support yourself and any family, be disease free, and be willing to learn English if you didn’t already know some. Any person posting here already cares about our country and knows where they stand on most issues and would have no problem with a two minute test of very simple hypothetical questions that would determine comprehension and understanding of questions where there is a clearly right and wrong answers. I know a program like that will never happen. Few people read and study anything anymore. It is too easy to just have fun and not care about anything. How often do you hear, “that is not my job” instead of “can I help you?”
September 13th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Dakota County has had among the lowest property tax rates in the state for quite awhile. To argue that those very same county commissioners who ran a highly efficient, Spartan county for so long are now running a secret bait-and-switch scheme against voters is ridiculous. Most of these people believe like the voters do that services should be as efficient as possible.
Unfortunately, the state legislature is ABSOLUTELY neglecting its responsibilities. There are ways to do the job more efficiently and there are ways to reduce spending, but they instead chose ways to shift the burden away from the state through funding formulas. For example, they changed the formula to push an additional 25% more education costs into property taxes at the same time that housing prices dropped. If anyone believes that the existing property taxes were enough to pay 25% more of pie while the pie has been shrinking, then that person hasn’t really researched the issue.
Even if counties were to drop new expenses rather than pay them, they still have to replace lost revenue from falling house prices. They really have been painted into a corner.
September 13th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
This is a very interesting thread. I hope elected officials are lurking, although it’s probably a repeat of what they’ve been hearing all along. My attempts to engage both my state rep (Bills) and my state senator (Gerlach) have not been very satisfying. So one tends to stop trying to dialog with a brick wall.
In the larger context, we will get the government we deserve and vote for. For instance, Dems want a more progressive tax formula (tax the rich) to maintain our level of services. Repubs want to cut government and make it so small “you can drown in a bathtub.” Which translates to very, very minimal services.
I’m most fascinated with watching the state folks shift the responsibility (tax burdens) to the cities and counties so they can say, see, we didn’t raise your taxes. All bull$h*t!
September 13th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Colin Lee hit the nail on the head, this legislature knowingly raised property taxes by changing the formula. They knew this when they passed the legislation, but they also place the blame at the local level.
i think a previous commenter on a link long ago, i cannot remember who it was, also hit the nail on the head when he/she was disparaging some elements of the residents of Lakeville who live in some toney neighborhoods who complain about taxes, but expect the police or emergency responders to be at their home if there is a problem in 3 minutes.
The problem with this country, at every level is people want the services but they dont want to pay for them.
September 13th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
lefty, comment #12, list the entitlements you would like to eliminate, please.
September 13th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
How about I start with welfare and social security? How about unemployment benefits be funded by actual insurance that you take out as a worker?
I won’t get into schools at this time, but I think there is room for them in this discussion.
I am not a Rick Perry Ponzi scheme believer, for the record, but I would be more than happy to have my SS dollars back in my pocket and no perceived right to money when I turn 68 or whatever that age will be when I get there, assuming I do. At least I could give that money to my kids if I die early.
I think I have room in my budget to ensure that those in this country that cannot take care of themselves physically or mentally are afforded some care, but that is about it. If you are capable of working, then you shouldn’t get free money for doing nothing.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Re #19, lefty, a large part of America can barely subsist on what business pays them with today’s prices, much less pay for more insurance. And I’m not sure how many families could afford to support an aging relative, when they’re concerned with feeding their families, but I’m not saying that I’m disagreeing with you, either.
And there is no such thing as free money; everything has a price. I just wish more people understood that.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Michele,
I have no sympathy for those who do not work hard enough to make a living wage. And do not tell me that those people have families to support, blah blah blah.
1. Do not put yourself in a situation where you cannot sustain a family and then go ahead and have a family.
2. If you find yourself out of a job after having a viable paying wage prior, you need to look harder to find yourself employment. Yes, this may *gasp* include having to move to find such a job in another state OR, god forbid, several low paying jobs which you will work at to have enough money in aggregate to pay your way.
September 13th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
What if we cut a bunch of programs and let the free market deliver them back?
In paying less taxes, businesses could compete for the best workers by offering “unemployment insurance” as a benefit to working there.
Women would flock to work for a business that paid full wages/benefits for 12 weeks after giving birth.
If we didn’t give the government so much money, maybe our working wages would be enough for all of us. If not, get a better job. Go back to school if that is the only way to qualify yourself. There is no excuse for not working hard, both in your job and in getting a better one.
Who here is happy about the part where people from Illinois pretend to live here so that they can get free government money? Wait until they build the high speed train to and from Chicago. That will make it even easier.
I don’t consider myself a Republican, for the record. I suppose I fall into the Libertarian views mostly since I think the government needs to stay out of people’s business, including equal rights for everyone including sexual orientation.
lefty
September 13th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Lefty, no high speed train is going to be affordable or attractive on a welfare check. That sounds like a REALLY LAME conspiracy theory. Poor people take the cheapest route available if and when they move, like MegaBus or Greyhound if they can afford it. Just as many are leaving the state as coming here. Even so, a large part of those buses are full of college students, most of whom make more than a welfare check from their parents’ wallets or a part-time job.
September 13th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Colin,
I was not alleging that the government was building those train tracks to bring in welfare recipients, just that there was a quicker way to get here. I was sort of being flippant on that part of my comment.
lefty
September 13th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Lefty:
Move to Texas and tell me how many great jobs there are to be had. There’s your example of the “free market” in action.
I’m sure they have all of those benefits and more! Why I’ll bet you get 5 weeks vacation to start!
September 13th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
We don’t require any vacation time in this country. If it were so important we would.
September 13th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
OK, here’s a prediction — when home owners open their Dak Co property tax statements for 2012 and see that the Homestead Credit has been eliminated, and, when the 2012 MN Legislature finds a way to build a new stadium for the billionaire Zigi and his Vikings… $H*T will hit the fan!! Bank on it!
September 13th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Yeah, I think it’s a great idea to cut taxes and give it all back to business, so they can pay higher wages and provide decent insurance to its employees. And that happened in the history of when?
In order for business to make a decent profit, there has to be a workforce that can live on a lower wage. Or businesses close their doors.
lefty, what you’re saying is that lower income people aren’t entitled to, well, any kind of life. That worked so well for the French aristocracy.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Great subject. Does anyone know how much the tax hikes would be? How much of an increase are we talking about for say an average 200,000 house? Also, does anyone have any specific areas of spending that they think should be cut and any idea on how much that would actually save? It seems like whenever I hear a discussion like this I always hear a lot of folks talking about “cutting the fat” or reducing waste, but there is never any specific mention of what it actually is that should be cut and how much that would save us.
September 13th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
The PiPress article tells you.
September 13th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
If you are really, really interested in the MN 2011 final budget implications you read an analysis here:
http://tinyurl.com/67768w9
September 14th, 2011 at 2:44 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
September 14th, 2011 at 6:09 am
I’m not quite sure what you’re all up in a huff about. Your husband works 50 hrs a week to support his family. Sounds like he’s doing that he can. He’s not going on public assistance or begging for money on the streets because he doesn’t want to work.
September 14th, 2011 at 7:59 am
Hmm.
What did bb stacker say on a different thread about nothing good happens at 2:44 am? That post is classic.
Have a nice hangover Michele.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:06 am
BTW, congrats to Michele on comment #300!
September 14th, 2011 at 8:43 am
I am saying that we are entitled to the life in which we have earned, income being one component.
I am pretty sure I come off here as a pompous ass at times here, but in the past 10 years, I can count 3 of them (consecutive) in which I literally earned zero income while trying to build a business and raise a family. At no point did I feel entitled to government assistance, which I suspect I was qualified for. We cut corners, paid the bills and worked hard to minimize building debt, etc. Basically, life was pretty tough for us.
I worked 70 or 80 hours a week, and I pretty much risked everything, and eventually things turned in our favor. It was hard but we got through it just like anyone else works their way through.
Would it have been easy to look to Big Brother to lend a hand when we were short? I suppose. Maybe we could have even become dependent upon my “entitlements”. We didn’t. I made that bed, slept in it and though I have not ye decided whether or not if I would do it over if I had a redo, I am glad I never had to beg.
I was never in the military, not sure if that is a factor, btw.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Good points all around so I will just highlight a few:
All levels of government, Counties, State, City, Federal have two options when faced with a revenue shortfall. Cut expenses or increase revenue. No one is forcing them to increase revenue (more taxes), just as no one is forcing them to cut. In the case of Dakota County, we can only assume that when they looked at their options, the one they took appeared to be the best of the worst. Anyone that didn’t think property taxes were going to go up after the mess the economy has remained, simply doesn’t really understand what is going on. I expect property taxes to continue to climb significantly over the next couple years.
Regarding those that struggle in our society. The solution to such a problem is not through government programs (i.e. spending), nor is the solution to simply give them nothing. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. There were times in my life where I could see us starting to find it. I don’t think we are looking anymore, as we now have folks that on one hand say “no soup for you” and on the other hand say “you’re from the government, you must be here to help”. Neither is close to right, yet that is all you hear anymore.
The legislature hasn’t done it’s job for quite a few sessions now. I recommend taking a hard look at who is representing you in the legislature, specifically how they are working to improve things. Based on that I bet lots of current legislatures won’t look too good. And thus I recommend voting some new ones in. Eventually these guys will get the message. Either fix it, or we’ll find someone that can.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I think it’s unfortunate that the State’s revenue-sharing with local units of government has been called “Local Aid,” because that name makes it sound like charity or, as Bill describes it, a subsidy. The State requires the counties, in particular, to provide a range of public health/employment/public safety services. In the past, the State has also provided a share of its revenue to local units of government, some in the form of direct payments for services and some in the form of general funding. The first statement is still true, but the local units of government no longer get state funding to provide the state-required services. In return, the local units of government get told they are profligate and irresponsible.
September 16th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Perhaps our whole tax structure needs to be inverted. Maybe most of our money should be paid to our local government, followed by the State, followed by the fed….
November 13th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
From: http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_19317585
Sure it’s easy to explain. You can start by saying something like this, “We were told by the state that we’re losing money we once received. Instead of doing the right thing and making hard decisions, like the state legislature asked us to do, and cut more services we’re instead raising your taxes and blaming others.”
I think that makes perfect sense. Unpopular, maybe, but the majority elected them and knew what they were going to do. Time to grow up Dakota County.
November 13th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Link to a PDF from the Minnesota House which describes what the Legislature was trying to do.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/hmvexclusion.pdf
Reading it was giving me a headache, and it seems in the end, it means everyone looses money. Great time to be a homeowner huh? Sorry that life is tough, let’s see if we can’t make it just a bit tougher.
Not to mention the rent hikes that all the renters will see once the property owners figure out how much more expensive 2011 and 2012 will be. Our government at work!
December 7th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
http://eagan.patch.com/articles/city-council-state-property-tax-laws-to-blame-for-increase
September 17th, 2012 at 7:01 am
[...] for citizens. While some have argued the limits themselves push cities to levy the maximum amount, with the changes at the state level, counties and cities are opting to raise taxes more to cover their loss in aid rather than make [...]