If it is information on how Minnesota's various taxes affect different
incomes, see the Minn. Dept. of Revenue study done in 1999 (based on 1996
taxes - latest data available) at
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/reports/fiscal/incid99.html. Look at Chapter
6, table 6-6 and accompanying text. I am not a statistician, but Consumer
Sales Tax takes a higher percentage of income for the taxpayers in the lower
half of the income levels than does Residential Property Taxes (including
rental). My reading is that sales tax is more regressive than property tax.
-Gary Thaden
WD 10
LD 60A
----- Original Message -----
From: Carol Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Ventura Tax Plan
> I am intrigued by the focus here on the sales tax. The only tax truly
> reflective of current income is the income tax. If you want a tax that is
> truly linked to income and can easily be structured to be progressive, it
> would be the income tax. Shifting burden away from property tax, which
has
> no link to current income, to the income tax, which is exactly based on
> income would be much more preferable from a tax equity standpoint than
> tinkering with the sales tax, which is a proxy for income. If having a
tax
> structure based on ability to pay and one that can easily be adjusted to
be
> progressive, I would think we would be focusing much more on the income
tax
> than the sales tax.
>
> But then again, I don't know if our political system wants a progressive
tax
> structure. Over the last five years, we have consistently made our tax
> structure less progressive. The net result of all the property tax
reforms
> over the last five years has been to shift a substantial amount of the
> burden to the middle income homeowner. Middle income property tax payers
> are chaffing under their increasing tax burden because high income
property
> tax payers and business owners have had substantial declines in their
> property tax burdens in relation. The biggest debate in the sales tax
> rebate was the Republican insistence that the highest income group be
given
> the same percentage tax break as everyone else, which meant that in
> relation, most of the money went to them.
>
> I would love to see someone do a study accumulating the impacts of all of
> these changes (Minnesota but also including the federal taxes) and see
just
> how much burden the shifted. I would think you would want to do this
before
> doing any more reform because I think the current discontent with the tax
> system is coming primarily from middle income people who are feeling the
> increased burden.
>
> Carol Becker
> Longfellow
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russell Wayne Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 5:58 AM
> Subject: RE: Ventura Tax Plan & Minneapolis Public Schools
>
>
> > Steven said:
> >
> > <I appreciate disincentives on consumption, but what are you going to
put
> > them on that won't hurt low-income folks? A "carbon tax" could be used
> > to discourage fossil fuel consumption, so that would be good, right?
But
> > then you consider that heating and electricity bills are already
> > skyrocketing, and you realize this would have a terrible impact
> > on low-income folks. And yes, wealthier people have bigger houses,
> > but on the other hand they're usually able to get better insulation.>
> >
> > As an illustration of my earlier question, let's consider this fossil
fuel
> > tax scenario. Steven's point assumes a flat tax rate. Why couldn't the
> tax
> > increase with the more you consume? Wouldn't it be fairer to have an
> > increasing tax rate as defined for consumption than with income? Don't
we
> > want people to make more and spend less? As far as property taxes go,
> don't
> > the poor in our city spend way more on housing than the rest of us and
are
> > hit really hard with a regressive tax in both rental and owner housing?
> >
> > Russ Peterson
> > Ward 9
> > Standish Ericsson
> >
> >
> >
> > R U S S E L L P E T E R S O N D E S I G N
> > "You can only fly if you stretch your wings."
> >
> > 3857 23rd Avenue South
> > Minneapolis, MN 55407
> >
> > 612-724-2331
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Russell W. Peterson, RA, CID
> > Founder
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steven C. Anderson
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:09 AM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: RE: Ventura Tax Plan & Minneapolis Public Schools
> >
> >
> > At 10:21 PM 9/11/2000 -0500, Russell Wayne Peterson wrote:
> > >The most regressive tax in my neighborhood over the past six years has
> been
> > >property taxes, not to mention sidewalk repair fees, etc. And calling
> > sales
> > >tax regressive assumes a number of things including a flat rate across
> the
> > >board of all purchases, which we don't have. And why couldn't
purchases
> be
> > >taxed at different rates to build in a little more equity if needed? I
> > also
> > >like the idea that you are taxed on what you consume. A better
> > >dis-incentive to purchasing more than you really need. I'd like to
hear
> > >more details about how this might work. Anybody including some of our
> > >representatives willing to speak?
> >
> > I appreciate disincentives on consumption, but what are you going to put
> > them on that won't hurt low-income folks? A "carbon tax" could be used
> > to discourage fossil fuel consumption, so that would be good, right?
But
> > then you consider that heating and electricity bills are already
> > skyrocketing, and you realize this would have a terrible impact
> > on low-income folks. And yes, wealthier people have bigger houses,
> > but on the other hand they're usually able to get better insulation.
> >
> > I agree with Steve Minn and others that moving education over from
> > property tax to some kind of sales tax would be an improvement - but
> > I'd really rather see the increase come out of income taxes.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't think that could possibly happen at this point,
> > as both the governor and the legislature is touting "income tax
> > reduction" as a major victory of the past session. They're not about
> > to backtrack.
> >
> > I'm not opposed to taxing clothes. This is one of the areas where a
> > huge amount of existing spending is "discretionary".
> >
> > --
> > Steven C. Anderson 612-722-6658 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The Independence Party Candidate for Minnesota Senate, District 62
> > http://www.SteveAnderson.org/
> >
> >
>
>
