Minnesota Gambling Expansion and Income Tax
I was wondering why the Minnesota Governor and republicans have been supporting an expansion of gambling. I guess the answer lies in a recent Minnesota Poll that says 42% "strongly support", 15% support, 8% oppose, and 29% strongly oppose a "Racino" at Caterbury Park.
I guess the lure of "free money" is too hard for a majority to resist.
Screw any relationship with the northern indian tribes of Minnesota (as originally suggested by Pawlenty). We just want the money.
Perhaps it is unfair to me to judge - since I think casinos are rather bizarre recreational pursuits. "Hey Joe! It's Friday night and I just got my paycheck! How about you? How 'bout we head over to the casino and see how fast we can lose our checks in the nickel slots, huh? heheheh"
Do we really need the government to protect citizen's from their choices in entertainment? Aren't "sin taxes" the way to go?
Heck - I'm an environmentalist. Just think of all the fuel wasted on people driving way out to Mystic Lake, Hinkley Grand, and Turtle Lake.
It is nice to know that the "Minnesota Taxpayer's league" is against expanding gambling: Gambling: A Losing Bet for Minnesota
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/pr_display.php?rid=249
It's nice I can agree with the TPL on one issue.
I've long voiced a position against the Lottery, and against state sponsored gambling, and that voice has been largely running against the current. People nod and accept the moral idealism, but keep that separate from the bottom line of keeping their taxes low.
The tax issue is an interesting one. On one hand the "low tax" crowd have it easy - self interest plus an ideal of keeping government spending growth under control. I'm impressived by the DFL willingnes put forth a tax increase, even if it is only adding a 4th tax bracket for the super incomes.
Will higher taxes on super-wealthly REALLY drive those people to other states? I suppose there will be positions where they'll be between two job offers - one in Minnesota, and one in say Illinois, similar job, similar benefits, similar cost of living, except for higher income taxes here.
Still STATE income taxes better than Federal taxes pay because the benefits stay closer to home. I'd UNCONDITIONALLY support across the board tax increases OVER any gambling tax income for the state.
Easy to say. Perhaps my "share" of this increase might be as high as $1000/year. Well, even so, I'd pay it happily. ESPECIALLY if it helps make the difference between a government that BORROWS+SPENTS and PAY-AS-YOU-GO.
Of course we might imagine "tax-grumblers" will say - "Go ahead, write out a check to the state government. Put your money where your month is."
I can afford it certainly, at least by income and minimum bills, but I do have quite a bit of mortgage payments ahead myself, and not unlimited certainty my job (or future employment) will provide for this debt. I'd rather put my $1000 as an extra mortgage payment now and get out of debt faster.
So what I'm saying is "I'm well off, but not secure I'll always be well off. Therefore I can't afford to be generous with 'extra' tax payments now. Maybe someday." And I'm generally projecting that someday will never come because economic downturns from the end of cheap oil will knock our economy into "The Long Emergency" where the only certainty is that the past was easier than the future.
Partly, in this sense, I am also concerned about "government growth" and increased dependence of people on government services. These are all great, but if the economy turns down, the government may no longer be able to do what it does now. Therefore it is better for some services to have more independence from government funding.
I suppose this isn't news to ANYONE dependent upon state government 'subsidies'. Schools, Colleges, Social Services, Hosiptals, Nursing homes, Post Office, Prisons, City and County governments, road/bridge infrastructure, Parks and wilderness etc.
It's perhaps unfair to call these 'subsidized'. We might as well call most of them as "ownership" or stewardship. You don't say a parent 'subsidizes' his children, at least not while they are underage. I still accept it in the sense of dependency.
There's levels of responsibility in all dependency. There's responsibility in the present in providing for immediate needs. There's also responsibility in promises for near-future needs. Lastly there's responsibility in assumptions/expections of continued long term needs.
Government is about planning, and so ideally immediate needs are already within the framework of past decisions. Budgeting future contributions to projected future needs is vitally important to both government and the service providers.
An example failure is when the State Government fails to provide clear promises to schools for their next year's budget. Schools, unable to guarantee funding, are forced to lay off new teachers in the spring, and rehire them in the fall if sufficient funding does come. Apparently there was also an issue of government delaying payments from previous years, causing schools to need to borrow money they have to spend early and HOPE state funding will repay it.
Long term projections of needs and funding is of course problematic, however good we are with projecting. The future economy can turn up or down, and there needs to be sufficient "savings" within the government to cover promised payments in the short term at least.
In my own budgeting I project a continued income into the indefinite future - considering I'll keep my current job, with perhaps a 3-4% pay raise each year, even if that barely covers the 3% inflation from 2004. I have some flexibility, so I can safely "overbudget" projections of growth in predictable utility costs like electricity, heating, water, trash, etc. I can then figure out how much I'll have left over to put towards my debt - which reduces my long term costs.
I imagine a government can also do a similar sort of budgeting even if 1000 times more complex. Still I realize that all my projections are budgeted on a SINGLE income source, at least single primary source - my salary. My entire budget is hinged on continuation of a salary. If I am laid off, probably it'll be because of an economic downturn where it'll be hard for me to find a job of similar salary. So a TRUE budget would have to imagine "Emergency conditions" where my income was suddenly cut in half, or even to 1/3 as a worst case perhaps.
Perhaps it is foolish to put much time into such worries, but some seems valuable. When I got my mortgage, I did consider the stability of my employment income as a large factor in taking on this new MASSIVE debt.
Similar for the government, it really should, if responsible, consider a PLAN B, where a perfect storm of economic hardships come that reduce projected income OR increase projected needs. ALSO, given such a projection, it ought to share the results with those organizations dependent upon their funding.
I don't know what "worst case" might look like for a state government, but it would be harsh I'm sure. Much worse than even recent downturns.
Generally the defense against downturn is Diversification, as they say in investing. That is true for individuals and for government. As an individual I'm overly dependent upon a primary source of income.
Governments (all levels) split their revenue sources from: Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, and User Fees. That's a good split I think. I'd imagine "income tax" as most unstable source, although sales tax also might be given "staples" (food and clothes) are exempted.
Well, I know I'm babbling, working out things without really knowing much at all in specifics. I just can see that it is reasonable for the government to budget on plans A, B, and C, at least looking out past the immediate next period. Plan A means more revenue than expected, and Plan C is less revenue.
We imagine that Plan B was the level that we "promise" funding. So if Plan A comes out, we'll have extra money to pay off debt, pay back to taxpapers, or give to one-time projects. If Plan C comes out, we've still got promises from "Plan B. Some of those promises ought to be kept, and some might be marked as lower priority and reduced as conditions demand.
Well, the advantage of spelling this out gives organizations a "heads up" on their future, and if they are on the "lower priority" list, they ought to be prepared for soliciting wider funding OR setting their own priorities for cutbacks if necessary.
Overall it seems horrible. I feel relatively secure in my employment. I'm not in danger of a layoff. Being in a small employee-owned company, I think we'd serious consider across-the-table salary cuts first, along with reduced hours perhaps, at least as first choices. Equally we're lucky for having minimal debt, so we are in direct control of our expenses. We could "downgrade" our rented office space as a last resort to cut expenses. We also seem to have a relatively niche market perhaps where we have been able to raise our product/hour rates based on increased costs. Still we do have contracts with government groups, and apparently funding there has not been cut enough to hurt us.
It's not fair that Teachers, Social Workers, etc, people helping the young and the dependent among us are most in danger of losing their jobs based on economic conditions. I don't have a solution. I accept there may be some wastefulness in government spending, but overall I trust most of the government activity is important and necessary.
I'll rejoice when the day comes that a majority support an across the board income tax increase in Minnesota. Then I'll know something important has changed.
Until then, individualism and self-interest seem to be the law of the land.
I guess the lure of "free money" is too hard for a majority to resist.
Screw any relationship with the northern indian tribes of Minnesota (as originally suggested by Pawlenty). We just want the money.
Perhaps it is unfair to me to judge - since I think casinos are rather bizarre recreational pursuits. "Hey Joe! It's Friday night and I just got my paycheck! How about you? How 'bout we head over to the casino and see how fast we can lose our checks in the nickel slots, huh? heheheh"
Do we really need the government to protect citizen's from their choices in entertainment? Aren't "sin taxes" the way to go?
Heck - I'm an environmentalist. Just think of all the fuel wasted on people driving way out to Mystic Lake, Hinkley Grand, and Turtle Lake.
It is nice to know that the "Minnesota Taxpayer's league" is against expanding gambling: Gambling: A Losing Bet for Minnesota
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/pr_display.php?rid=249
It's nice I can agree with the TPL on one issue.
I've long voiced a position against the Lottery, and against state sponsored gambling, and that voice has been largely running against the current. People nod and accept the moral idealism, but keep that separate from the bottom line of keeping their taxes low.
The tax issue is an interesting one. On one hand the "low tax" crowd have it easy - self interest plus an ideal of keeping government spending growth under control. I'm impressived by the DFL willingnes put forth a tax increase, even if it is only adding a 4th tax bracket for the super incomes.
Will higher taxes on super-wealthly REALLY drive those people to other states? I suppose there will be positions where they'll be between two job offers - one in Minnesota, and one in say Illinois, similar job, similar benefits, similar cost of living, except for higher income taxes here.
Still STATE income taxes better than Federal taxes pay because the benefits stay closer to home. I'd UNCONDITIONALLY support across the board tax increases OVER any gambling tax income for the state.
Easy to say. Perhaps my "share" of this increase might be as high as $1000/year. Well, even so, I'd pay it happily. ESPECIALLY if it helps make the difference between a government that BORROWS+SPENTS and PAY-AS-YOU-GO.
Of course we might imagine "tax-grumblers" will say - "Go ahead, write out a check to the state government. Put your money where your month is."
I can afford it certainly, at least by income and minimum bills, but I do have quite a bit of mortgage payments ahead myself, and not unlimited certainty my job (or future employment) will provide for this debt. I'd rather put my $1000 as an extra mortgage payment now and get out of debt faster.
So what I'm saying is "I'm well off, but not secure I'll always be well off. Therefore I can't afford to be generous with 'extra' tax payments now. Maybe someday." And I'm generally projecting that someday will never come because economic downturns from the end of cheap oil will knock our economy into "The Long Emergency" where the only certainty is that the past was easier than the future.
Partly, in this sense, I am also concerned about "government growth" and increased dependence of people on government services. These are all great, but if the economy turns down, the government may no longer be able to do what it does now. Therefore it is better for some services to have more independence from government funding.
I suppose this isn't news to ANYONE dependent upon state government 'subsidies'. Schools, Colleges, Social Services, Hosiptals, Nursing homes, Post Office, Prisons, City and County governments, road/bridge infrastructure, Parks and wilderness etc.
It's perhaps unfair to call these 'subsidized'. We might as well call most of them as "ownership" or stewardship. You don't say a parent 'subsidizes' his children, at least not while they are underage. I still accept it in the sense of dependency.
There's levels of responsibility in all dependency. There's responsibility in the present in providing for immediate needs. There's also responsibility in promises for near-future needs. Lastly there's responsibility in assumptions/expections of continued long term needs.
Government is about planning, and so ideally immediate needs are already within the framework of past decisions. Budgeting future contributions to projected future needs is vitally important to both government and the service providers.
An example failure is when the State Government fails to provide clear promises to schools for their next year's budget. Schools, unable to guarantee funding, are forced to lay off new teachers in the spring, and rehire them in the fall if sufficient funding does come. Apparently there was also an issue of government delaying payments from previous years, causing schools to need to borrow money they have to spend early and HOPE state funding will repay it.
Long term projections of needs and funding is of course problematic, however good we are with projecting. The future economy can turn up or down, and there needs to be sufficient "savings" within the government to cover promised payments in the short term at least.
In my own budgeting I project a continued income into the indefinite future - considering I'll keep my current job, with perhaps a 3-4% pay raise each year, even if that barely covers the 3% inflation from 2004. I have some flexibility, so I can safely "overbudget" projections of growth in predictable utility costs like electricity, heating, water, trash, etc. I can then figure out how much I'll have left over to put towards my debt - which reduces my long term costs.
I imagine a government can also do a similar sort of budgeting even if 1000 times more complex. Still I realize that all my projections are budgeted on a SINGLE income source, at least single primary source - my salary. My entire budget is hinged on continuation of a salary. If I am laid off, probably it'll be because of an economic downturn where it'll be hard for me to find a job of similar salary. So a TRUE budget would have to imagine "Emergency conditions" where my income was suddenly cut in half, or even to 1/3 as a worst case perhaps.
Perhaps it is foolish to put much time into such worries, but some seems valuable. When I got my mortgage, I did consider the stability of my employment income as a large factor in taking on this new MASSIVE debt.
Similar for the government, it really should, if responsible, consider a PLAN B, where a perfect storm of economic hardships come that reduce projected income OR increase projected needs. ALSO, given such a projection, it ought to share the results with those organizations dependent upon their funding.
I don't know what "worst case" might look like for a state government, but it would be harsh I'm sure. Much worse than even recent downturns.
Generally the defense against downturn is Diversification, as they say in investing. That is true for individuals and for government. As an individual I'm overly dependent upon a primary source of income.
Governments (all levels) split their revenue sources from: Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, and User Fees. That's a good split I think. I'd imagine "income tax" as most unstable source, although sales tax also might be given "staples" (food and clothes) are exempted.
Well, I know I'm babbling, working out things without really knowing much at all in specifics. I just can see that it is reasonable for the government to budget on plans A, B, and C, at least looking out past the immediate next period. Plan A means more revenue than expected, and Plan C is less revenue.
We imagine that Plan B was the level that we "promise" funding. So if Plan A comes out, we'll have extra money to pay off debt, pay back to taxpapers, or give to one-time projects. If Plan C comes out, we've still got promises from "Plan B. Some of those promises ought to be kept, and some might be marked as lower priority and reduced as conditions demand.
Well, the advantage of spelling this out gives organizations a "heads up" on their future, and if they are on the "lower priority" list, they ought to be prepared for soliciting wider funding OR setting their own priorities for cutbacks if necessary.
Overall it seems horrible. I feel relatively secure in my employment. I'm not in danger of a layoff. Being in a small employee-owned company, I think we'd serious consider across-the-table salary cuts first, along with reduced hours perhaps, at least as first choices. Equally we're lucky for having minimal debt, so we are in direct control of our expenses. We could "downgrade" our rented office space as a last resort to cut expenses. We also seem to have a relatively niche market perhaps where we have been able to raise our product/hour rates based on increased costs. Still we do have contracts with government groups, and apparently funding there has not been cut enough to hurt us.
It's not fair that Teachers, Social Workers, etc, people helping the young and the dependent among us are most in danger of losing their jobs based on economic conditions. I don't have a solution. I accept there may be some wastefulness in government spending, but overall I trust most of the government activity is important and necessary.
I'll rejoice when the day comes that a majority support an across the board income tax increase in Minnesota. Then I'll know something important has changed.
Until then, individualism and self-interest seem to be the law of the land.
posted by Ares Olympus at 3:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home