It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Governor Taxed Rich Increased the Minimum Wage -- State's Economy Is One of the Best

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
There is always someone here at ATS to tell me the dangers of raising taxes on the wealthy. Here is what happened when one state not only raised the taxes on the wealthy, but upped minimum wage too!


When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate from his predecessor, Tim Pawlenty,



During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He's also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women.


Job market:


Between 2003 and late 2010, when Pawlenty was at the head of Minnesota's state government, he managed to add only 6,200 more jobs.



Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota's economy -- that's 165,800 more jobs in Dayton's first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined.


source

How did those tax cuts work out for Wisconsin?




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Great news for Minnesota, can't wait to hear why this is wrong or bad from the pundits...




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm all for raising taxes on the rich-
but it's just a stop gap for the failing currency system


+10 more 
posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Anyone with common sense knows this formula works and is how it worked in the Pre-Reagan era before this idiot reversed the Tax Code and broke down Regulations. It does work, The Middle Class grew more wealthy and the Rich got richer, the ranks of the poor shrank.

What we have in Power Globally are very sick people, you could label them Satanic because it fits. Start with the Federal Reserve and Wall Street Corporations, these are the enemies of Mankind, these are the "people" that call everyone Terrorists. Exploiters of Humanity.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well maybe. 160k a year is middleclass though. I think that particular demographic is carrying enough of the burden already. If he proposed a greater tax increase for those in excess of 500k I think the dividends would be even greater. I am suspicious that even in Minnesota the wealthy are wriggling out of their share of the tax burden and the middle class are once again, left to prop up everyone else.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Its basic common sense. The only people against it are the rich, and those that believe that they too will be rich one day.
Which is a surprising number of people.

If a lie is repeated enough, people will believe it.
Just like WMD's.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
$9.50 by 2018?? I THINK cost of living and inflation will surpass it by then... but I could be wrong. Still, good news in other areas I guess.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Twin cities is still a liberal cesspool with an alarming rising Muslim population! Can't wait to move there! The real estate market is one of the biggest reasons for the economy doing so well. Housing is still very affordable and schools are good because educated middle class Americans are living there. They are the ones paying all the taxes. Not the rich. There aren't nearly as many rich people as say in CA or NY. Or even FL. And there are a whole host of reasons why MN real estate is so affordable the least of which have nothing to do with current or recent past governors or raising income taxes. For example MN is one of a handful of large metropolitan areas that can build new suburbs and commercial buildings in all four directions unimpeded by natural geographical barriers like a coast or mountains.
edit on 25-2-2015 by MiddleClassWhiteBoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

You're going to have to do a little better than a swipe at a religious group to make any valid points. I live in an area with an established & growing Muslim population, too, and it's not crushing anything.

Minnesota's cheap real estate days, like anywhere else, are numbered and prices will rise & fall with time. It does that anywhere desirable property is, and if MN keeps up the good wages with the good cost of living & property costs, they'll have an influx of residents like Colorado did. Demand drives prices, duh.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well, you can't compare jobs totals and then pretend that they're even similar--the new guy is in when the recovery is happening, and the other guy left at the point when nearly every state saw massive amounts of job losses. Apples to apples, sir.

Also, I guess Minnesota's economy is "one of the best" (per your headline) if you consider #16 as one of the best. I guess that puts them right at the 78th percentile in the country--when I grew up, that would get you a 'C' in school. Nowadays, we call that "meh." But it's better than 77% of the others, I guess, so there's that.

But, then you look at their list of State Economic Growth Rankings, and Minnesota comes in at a lukewarm 19th out of 50. That's smack dab at the 62nd percentile--ouch.



•Minnesota saw a decrease of only 0.6% in its unemployment rate between June 2014 and June 2014, though with a June 2014 rate of 4.5%, the state's employment situation is a little better than that of the nation at large.


So, very slow unemployment decrease over that measured year doesn't necessarily support the claim of massive job growth. As with all unemployment numbers, they don't take into account the under-employed, those who have dropped out of the job market altogether, and those who have moved out of the state to chase other jobs (like fracking in the Dakotas, both of which are bordering neighbors to MN).

There's also this...unemployment dropping amidst job josses? How does that happen?

As for taxing to get out of debt--you may claim that works, and your data may imply a correlation, but don't mistake that for causation, nor as proof that taxation is a good thing, and that raising it is just great stuff.
edit on 25-2-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Its basic common sense. The only people against it are the rich, and those that believe that they too will be rich one day.


Well, no...basic common sense means don't spend outside of your means.

Also, I don't ever plan to be monetarily rich, but I am against the government thinking that they have a right to take the compensation that I earn for my time, skill, and labor. I don't have to be rich or think I eventually will be to realize that is not the way things should work.

However, I do understand that some form of taxation is necessary at the state level, I just refuse to drink the income-tax-is-the-best-way kool-aid. In America, you should not be taxed just because you work.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Its basic common sense. The only people against it are the rich, and those that believe that they too will be rich one day.


Well, no...basic common sense means don't spend outside of your means.

Also, I don't ever plan to be monetarily rich, but I am against the government thinking that they have a right to take the compensation that I earn for my time, skill, and labor. I don't have to be rich or think I eventually will be to realize that is not the way things should work.

However, I do understand that some form of taxation is necessary at the state level, I just refuse to drink the income-tax-is-the-best-way kool-aid. In America, you should not be taxed just because you work.


Oh I agree entirely. But while we are taxed for our labour, I think its only fair that those with the broadest shoulders take up the greater burden. Not those who are disabled, old or the working poor that pull all the weight, because the many of the "rich" use tax loopholes to avoid paying anything.

EDIT TO ADD:

Also having been poor my whole life, I know full well that living within your means is impossible when to just survive takes more money than you can make. I have spent the last 5 years living hand to mouth. Only last December I finally got a pay rise that gives me some spending money at least, I can actually go and buy some new clothes now.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmWed, 25 Feb 2015 13:34:27 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad
Then we have Governor Brownback (good Christian that he is) doing the exact opposite cutting all Corporate Taxes and Rich peoples Taxes and his Miserable State has never been in such dire distress and the asshat thinks things will work out if given more time.

These people make me fighting Mad.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Color me a hair skeptical about this list. It lists Florida as #6, but I call bullchit on the ranking. The COL is high, and for most people, it's hard to find something that pays well. We left Florida for Michigan last fall because despite having grown up there, it wasn't economically feasible to stay. You can shuffle all over FL looking for the fabled economic sweet spot, but you're going to be screwed with the COL. Up here, it seems W MI is the beacon. E MI appears to be pulling itself back up (save for Detroit) more slowly, but there's a palpable rebound going on for industry here. FL survives on tourism. Despite the Space Coast & a few companies in Tampa, Miami, Orlando, there's not much going for it industrially, or corporately.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I advocate a flat tax with no loopholes. There...problem fixed



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: OneManArmy

I advocate a flat tax with no loopholes. There...problem fixed


Lol, I know its easy, you know its easy, but tell the politicians that are busy feathering their own nests about it.

I would say its the politicians that need video cameras in their offices and everywhere they go.
Its them that need the microchips, so WE the PEOPLE can make sure they are doing their job of SERVING the people, correctly. And when we find them lacking, we disable their chip, and they cannot enter government.
That would solve a few issues, Im sure.
If we werent so indebted to the private banks then taxes wouldnt even be so high in the first place.

EDIT:
Income tax was brought in here in the UK to fight Napolean.
And how long ago was that?!?!
SMH.
edit on 20152America/Chicago02pm2pmWed, 25 Feb 2015 13:53:54 -06000215 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Oh, I'm not married to the veracity of the rankings, and all rankings are subjective to the organization identifying the contributing parameters. But, if you go to the original rankings page, it explains how they came up with the rankings--whether or not you agree, that's up to you.

And I'm originally from Cali and have found myself living happily in KY (although possibly looking to move to IN in the next 3 years or so)--my point being that I know about ridiculous COL and states propped up by tourism. I certainly wouldn't be happy in MI, but tha'ts just me--this last week of weather in the Cincinnati area has been enough to tell me I'd prefer not to live much farther north.

But to go back to the rankings, my whole point is that the OP made claims in the title about the state's economy that wasn't supported in the OP at all, so I thought I'd research it, and that's what I found. You must admit that it certainly doesn't meet the "one-of-the-best" claim, by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well maybe. 160k a year is middleclass though.


It is also the 1%!



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A flat tax..

...oh I see you think the poor should pay more taxes.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well maybe. 160k a year is middleclass though.


It is also the 1%!


No. It's not.

The 1% income earners make in excess of 350k per individual (not per household) annually. In the United States at any rate.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join