I guess that would explain Gov Daytons last veto of the session in St Paul. That GOP sponsored and passed legislation ,in an effort to reward job creators ,promote small business growth ,and while they were at it "government & regulatory reform" proposed to eliminate property taxes for small business or commercial property as most people would call it among other income tax breaks for the same business owners. Im certain the state GOP lawmakers figured this year was their last ,therefore what did they have to lose ?. Do get out and vote in Nov. , you can make a difference.

That's been the republican plank for years now. Sorry, but trickle down has been proven to be a fallacy--if it worked, the economy would not be in the trouble it is.

The author went back to the 50's for an example. We need not go back that far. Higher income individuals paid much more in taxes than they do today in the Reagan years. Remember them?

The truth is there have been tax cuts after tax cut and people seem to conveniently forget basic skills that one would assume they use to manage their own budgets. As you have less and less coming in sooner or later you have to pay the piper.

Also forgotten is that many of those tax cuts came with a promise--a promise that they were temporary. A short time boost for the economy.

What we have learned is that no tax cut is ever temporary. Each and every one is treated as permanent by the republicans.

True fiscal responsibility goes out the window with both parties. Just as any new major spending has to be reviewed for absolute need in this economy, so does every tax cut. Both affect the pocketbook! Neither party is fiscally responsible in this regard, and it's getting worse particularly on the right side.

And WHY does the school board need to obtain more money through property tax? Could it be because State funding has been stagnant while costs of goods and services have skyrocketed?

No tax increases in state taxes mean that the state contribution to public education can't keep up with inflation. This puts more of the burden on the backs of the local population through property tax.

We, Joe Public are still paying. We are just paying through increased local taxes instead of increased state taxes.

the middle-class has been sliding into poverty for four decades, ever since 'trickle-down' came into vogue. Wages have stagnated while wealth has been redirected to the top. Maybe with a vulture capitalist in charge we could complete the process of transferring the economy off-shore. It would make some people even richer.

One of those myths is that middle class income has “stagnated” in the last 40 years. And that’s because the rich have basically ended up with the money generated. Those pushing that premise are citing economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez study which claims the taxable income of the bottom 99 percent increased by just 12 percent from 1970 to 2008.

That premise and those claims are under serious assault. In fact, the University of Chicago’s Tino Sanandaji finds that there has been pretty significant growth in middle class income.

The simple method is combining the best income-distribution estimate (from Pickety&Saez) with the best income-growth estimates (from GDP numbers). This method shows that that between 1970-2008 the real per capita income of the “Bottom 99 Percent” grew by 80%, and the income of the “Bottom 90 Percent” grew by 60%.

80%? Last time I looked that was a bit higher than 12%!

And there is statistical backup for Sanandaji’s findings:
From 1975-2009, real per capita GDP increased by 90 percent vs. 17 percent growth in real median household income, as measured by the Census Bureau. On top of that:
These calculations are in line with new research from University of Chicago’s Bruce Meyer and Notre Dame’s James Sullivan, who find that “median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009.”

Conclusion? If the premise is that one of the reasons that upper income increased in that period is because middle class income stagnated, the premise just isn’t supported by reality. Income is not a zero-sum game. And one of the points on the pro side of capitalism is it lifts all boats – as demonstrated here.

Conservatives have a commune? Who knew? Sounds like communism. LOL!

...has heard of corporate welfare. He's an expert practitioner of it.

This week economist on the radio said that the majority of jobs that have been created during the Great Recession were created by the job creators who always create the most jobs......small business.

By 'small business' he was talking about businesses with few dozen or less employees not the mega businesses the GOP favors. Most of those small businesses wouldn't be impacted by increasing the tax rate on the wealthy because they are below the $250,000/yr income and even those that are would keep the exact same tax rate on their income up to $250,000.

LLR, regarding your response about whether or not it is appropriate to post a plagiarized comment; that isn't the only issue. If you are copying something you read on another blog, it helps readers to know the the focus/intent of the original author. As we all know, there are publications and writers out there with very specific and polarized points of view (one could even say prejudices.)

After reading the crap that I read on here day after day copied from the pages of the liberal blogs but I get called into question on a piece, that no one questions the facts that it is correct, only whether I cut and pasted it. Unbelievable!!

I was interested in tracking the original study down so I could examine it myself. Thanks to Eyolf's suggestion, I was able to do that.

And yes, it is standard procedure to note the source when somehting is copied word for word. If you're concerned about crap copied from blogs, you might register your complaint with 'blog-boy' Keith Hanson... he's a master at it.

;-P~

...if I were king, but I have a feeling that's not the way the law works.

I do marvel at your ability to throw stones from glass houses, though. Do you recall how much of taxpayer's dollars it cost to deal with Bill Clinton's legal escapades? How about the legal costs for Obama, so he didn't have to do something he should have done before he even got on the ballot (i.e., show his long form birth certificate)?

Now you have me curious, Muehlbauer. What sources are you citing regarding the cost to taxpayers for defense of Presidents Clinton and Obama? And while we're on the topic, why would President Obama need to defend his claim to be a US citizen? He was born in Hawaii, and that fact has been honestly verified and clear to most citizens from the very start.