I want Dave to know that we have some areas of
agreement. We agree that: Fairness has many possible
definitions; Progressive taxation is fair-usually;
Minneapolis is limited in how they can raise money. I
want it made clear however that none of the M's in MMM
stand for masochist.
I do disagree however with Dave's argument that we
should make corporations pay a larger share of the
local tax burden as "one way to take something more
from corporations". First of all, not all commercial
property in Minneapolis is owned by corporations. I
own some myself. Yes, I am a tall white male
capitalist landlord. As such, when the tax bill comes,
I divide up the amount by the square footage the
tenants occupy and send them their portion to pay.
They do so. Since they are successful business people,
they then adjust their prices to cover the increased
cost. My current tenants include a hardware store,
floor store, deli, cleaners, gift shop etc. Their
customers live in Minneapolis. As an owner of the
building I do not pay the increased taxes, I am a
conduit for the store owners payment. The store owners
also do not pay the taxes. They are a conduit for the
money received from customers. You can tax me, but I
am not paying the bill. Customers are. They are
Minneapolis citizens. If you want their money, have
the courage to ask them for it.
The reason I like accountability is not that I like
the pain of paying taxes. First of all, my father
always taught me that paying taxes was not a pain but
an honor that came with success. I struggle mightily
with this one, but I keep working on it. I like
accountability because I think we pay a lot more
attention to how our money is spent, when we see
clearly that it is our money being spent. We are not
deceived into thinking that some corporation is paying
it for us. I am not positive the school referendum is
as successful as we all hope, but I vote for it when
it is on the ballot. I feel good about giving that
support to the schools. I feel good that the school
board has stood by their commitment to honor those
dollars by spending them as proposed. To me this is
accountability.
The real estate tax is not a perfect vehicle for
progressive taxation, but it has some progressiveness
built in. Southwest Minneapolis real estate values are
higher, hence we pay more taxes. The taxes are not all
spent in SW Mpls however. They are spent in areas of
Minneapolis that have a lower tax base, and often
times greater needs. Obviously people with higher
priced property throughout the city, subsidize people
living in lower priced homes. This part of the tax is
progressive and I accept as being as fair as the
current tax system allows. I am concerned however with
how much (as Dave would say) pain I will be dealing
with in the future. My real estate taxes have
invcreased over the last ten years at an annual
inflation rate of 8 1/2%. That is to high to maintain.
I believe Minneapolis needs to live up to its
commitment to all neighborhoods by completing the
funding for Phase 1 of NRP. Phase II is a different
matter. I favor evaluating Phase I's successes and
failures, reviewing how the MCDA will be funded,
discussing the role the MCDA, NRP and Planning
Department each play in the city and perhaps
redefining those roles based on what we have learned
and what we want for the future. Perhaps the MCDA
should have its financing diminished, perhaps the NRP
should. Maybe the MCDA is merged with the Planning
Department and NRP takes on a role adjusted to reflect
its success and our new goals. I don't believe we
should rush into an attempt to raise taxes for NRP and
the MCDA. It's time to think things over a bit.
Bob Gustafson
SW
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
