Dems and Republicans can???t agree on wha t a spending ???cut??? is

Share

Share

The sneaky truth is that the "Provider Tax" goes straight into the general
fund. It's just another tax. I'm in the mental health field, but my work is
exempt from such a tax. Nevertheless, it seems as if mental health providers
were singled out as the only group that had to pay a tax so consumers would be
subsidized to use their services. I'd support it, as long as plumbers paid a
"plumbing tax" so people could afford to get their drains reamed out, mechanics
paid a "mechanic tax" so people could be subsidized for their car repairs, and
so on and so on....
 
Mike Thompson
Windom, Minneapolis

Rest of post

-----Original Message-----
From: Minnesota Politics and Issues Forum <mn-politics@forums.e-democracy.org>
On Behalf Of Ken Bearman
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 2:34 PM
To: mn-politics@forums.e-democracy.org
Subject: [Minnesota] Dems and Republicans can???t agree on wha t a spending
???cut??? is
 
On 4/1/2019 11:19 AM, John Gaylord wrote:
> Dems and Republicans can’t agree on what a spending ‘cut’ is
> (https://outline.com/u758gm)
>
> The newspaper calls this a "Government Twilight Zone" - they can't even call
the simplest topics fairly.
>
> The Republicans are right in this instance. Calling spending increases 'cuts'
is a tactic meant to inflame passions - one which works. The facts are clear,
but the newspaper still acts as though both are legitimate positions.
>
> (To be clear, no one disputes the potential impact of inflation, only
> the use of 'cuts' to describe increases less than the predicted
> inflation value.)
= = = = =
[KB] Sure. And Republicans in the Legislature call continuing
(reauthorizing) the expiring Provider Tax to continue funding state health
programs a "tax increase".
 
Let's argue about what politicians have twisted English into. We've settled
all the substance.
 
 
 
Ken Bearman
King Field neighborhood, W8-P7, SD 62, Minneapolis
About/contact Ken Bearman: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/kenbearman
 
 
Rules: Be civil - No name calling, personal attacks, etc.
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mn​-politics​/charter
Complaints to: <email obscured>
 
 
------------------------
Reply: Reply-All or visit
http://forums.e-democracy.org​/r​/topic​/E6D9qUeh0QokzaEQrqo7w
New Topic: mn-politics@forums.e-democracy.org
Digest: Subject: digest on
Leave: Subject: unsubscribe
Forum Home: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/groups​/mn​-politics
 
 
 
 
Help? http://e-democracy.org/support Hosting: http://OnlineGroups.Net

Share

On 4/1/2019 2:52 PM, Michael Thompson wrote:
> The sneaky truth is that the "Provider Tax" goes straight into the general
fund. It's just another tax.
 
So it is. And "Provider Tax" is a sorta sneaky (and illogical) way to
do it. But for politicians, it's "whatever works". The funds really
should be raised by increasing corporate taxes, or maybe the top
brackets of personal income taxes, or charging equivalent taxes on
upper-income stuff like capital gains.
 
Continuing it isn't an increase, though. It's the same tax as before.
$1 today is the same as $1 yesterday.

Rest of post

 

×

Hide the post

Loading…

You cannot post because you are not logged in.

Already a member?

Sign in to post.

Not a member?

Register to become a member.