Dear Neighbor,
The House has spent a lot of time in the full chamber this week discussing omnibus budget bills, those hodge-podges of provisions related to taxing and spending.
My fundamental distaste for omnibus bills has been made clear, so now seems to be as good a time as any to bring the budget discussion to a different level. A number of bills I have introduced this session create perfect opportunities to think about things in more of a philosophical, global sense instead of blustering over the merits – or demerits – of any given portion of the state budget.
My bills are not partisan, but should get people thinking and talking about the way our state operates. Two of them are directly related:
H.F. 2256 repeals the state's individual income and corporate franchise taxes.
H.F. 2257 repeals the state's sales and use taxes.
Let those soak in for a minute, then ask yourself: If you had to choose between one or the other, which would it be? I mean, which taxes that you personally pay – not the ones your neighbor pays – would you like to see repealed?
Of course there is no practical way both of these bills would pass in Minnesota and I harbor no illusions in authoring these proposals that either of will receive broad, bipartisan support and be swept into enactment.
But, again, that is not the point in authoring them. What I would like to learn is where people stand on taxation issues and these bills can help make that happen by sparking a discussion. Would repealing one or the other create a more transparent system? Are either sales/use or income taxes especially onerous? If so, which one? Should we just keep things the way they are?
It is interesting how Minnesota taxes the money we make and then taxes it again when we spend it. Seven states have no state income tax and two more do not tax wage income. Five other states have no sales and use taxes.
Alaska's resources allow it to be the one state that taxes neither, but that still leaves 10 states that have decided to take an either-or approach.
Along with taxation comes state spending totals and I have authored a bill to help get us talking about that issue as well. My H.F. 2259 limits state spending to 5 percent of the income citizens earn. If the economy is thriving, the state has a bit more to work with. If workers are earning less, the state takes less.
One of the key reasons I authored this is because state spending has dramatically outpaced workers' earning growth in recent decades. The question we need to ask is this: Why is the state able to go on double-digit spending sprees at times income is flat or even reduced? Do taxpayers deserve protection to prevent that from happening?
It is a discussion we should have and I welcome your feedback.
While we are at it, what do you think about setting a 10-year term limit for both House and Senate members in Minnesota? I have introduced H.F. 2258 to bring up this subject. There currently are 15 states with term limits, ranging from six to 16 years.
How do you feel about this? At what point does an "experienced" legislator become a career politician? Are we OK with career politicians because legislative experience helps, or do views become stale and rigid once a member becomes entrenched? Would a 10-year limit strike a balance between experience and so-called beltway politics?
There are a lot of questions here and even more opinions, but that is why I have introduced these bills. I welcome your feedback and look forward to some interesting correspondence.
Sincerely,
Mark