Minnesota Republicans keep assuring us that they won't raise taxes. Any tax. Those pesky property taxes that might go up as the state retreats from LGA, kicks prisoners into local jails, and passes on other government functions? Meh, the logic goes, local governments can just "spend differently," rather than seek additional revenue.
Indeed, headlines earlier this week noted that GOP legislative leaders plan fly-around to promote 'no-tax increase' stand. When a late snowstorm made flying risky, they prudently postponed the trip until next week, but it will happen.
But there's a Republican bill in the hopper that would tax some clothing and high wage earners.
The Star Tribune reports in T-shirts could aid Vikings' stadium bid:
That Vikings jersey, Twins cap or Wild poster on the sales rack could play a bigger role than you think in helping to pay for a new Vikings stadium.
A 10 percent tax on wholesale sales of sports memorabilia -- including anything sold in Minnesota licensed by any pro sports team or league, not just the NFL -- would provide most of the state funding share called for in a stadium bill, according to a study by the Revenue Department. . . .
That would be followed by:
• $7.8 million from a 5 percent surcharge on the income that Vikings players and their opponents make when playing in the new stadium . . .
• $1.39 million from a 6.5 percent sales tax on direct satellite TV services, including DVR; . .. .
The memorabilia tax would be collected not just on items licensed by NFL football, but also the International Federation of Association Football and the Football Association. Not to mention Major League Baseball, the NHL, the NBA, NASCAR, Major League Soccer and World Wrestling Entertainment.
The 5 percent income tax surcharge would apply to any sports team employee who makes at least $250,000 a year. Most of those would be players, but some Vikings executives and their opposite numbers on other teams could be taxed as well for stadium work time.
This is curious logic from the no-new-taxes crowd. Apparently, it's okay to go to high-income people working in an industry which gains from a structure to be built with public assistance, and tax clothing that is licensed by an entire ndustry.
And even that last one is a stretch, since it lumps WWE into "sports" when the company itself thinks of itself as entertainment. Moreover, NASCAR will never be a stadium sport, regardless of how many left turns those athletic drivers take. It's hard to see why WWE and NASCAR fans should pay a tax on their t-shirts in a state where clothing isn't taxed.
Moreover, the added surcharge on high-income earners in the football industry seems hypocritical coming from members of a political party that objects to surcharges on income taxes for other high wage earners working in any other industry.
The logic behind the surcharge is no different from that advanced by progressives who advocate a surcharge on all high-income earners during times when more revenue is needed: to those to whom much is given, much will be demanded.
On the other hand, perhaps this model can be adopted for funding government needs that benefit other industries. Senator stadium author Julie Rosen's ex-husband makes a great deal of money in the meat-packing industry, as do executives who work for Hormel and Cargill. Let's slap a personal income tax surcharge on their salaries to fund the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Ditto with the health care and health insurance industry. The revenue on high-earners could be dedicated to the state HHS.
Drawn a big check from a firm that builds roads? Income tax surcharge for construction company CEOs.
Why should pro-football players and executives who need a stadium be singled out for this class warfare? Why should sports fans alone have to pay sales tax on t-shirts?
How are new taxes not new taxes? Why is the logic of these new taxes acceptable only for a stadium--and not for other spending by the State of Minnesota? If Tony Sutton and his party object to new taxes--especially for what they call "wants" rather than "needs--how are these new taxes,including an income tax surcharge targeting "the rich," suddenly okay to solving a revenue shortfall?
Sutton wrote earlier this year:
"Please resist any “revenue enhancement” proposals like raising taxes, raising fees, expanding gambling, expanding the sales tax, or any other such schemes that not only violate our principles, but are also bad politics and bad public policy," Sutton wrote in a Feb. 14 letter to legislators.
"The challenge will be to overcome and resist the tremendous pressure by outside special interests who will want you to compromise on the principles that got you elected in order to “find revenue” (i.e. raise taxes, raise fees, expand gambling, etc.) to “invest” in big government," he wrote. "You cannot espouse limited government on one hand, while looking to find new sources of revenue on the other."
Why is this "want" a special exception to Republican principles, and not other "wants" (and even "needs" like incarcerating short-term prisoners in state corrections institutions)? What makes this "investment" different from those in higher education?
Ilustration: The proposed Vikes stadium. None dare call it class warfare if the income tax surcharge is on a defense line.
Heh! Thanks for spotting this, SJS.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Apr 23, 2011 at 10:27 AM