The DFL looks out for the little guy, huh?

[vakkotaur]

The DFL finally got around to releasing a state budget plan. Good for them. As could be expected, they call for tax increases. The DFL tries to say it's for the little guy and maintain that it isn't involved in class warfare - a delicate balance and a hard argument to swallow after watching them for a while. Their plan certainly is interesting, but not for what the DFL is saying about it. No, the three areas of tax increases are what is of interest. Now, before I get into them, remember the DFL just hates those regressive taxes that hit the little guy...

1. A new income tax bracket, 9.4% (the current highest is 7.85%) for those making above $135,000 or $250,000 for joint returns. This is no surprise, it's a standard "they have more money, so we take more from them" DFL tax. This is considered a "progressive" tax: if you make any economic progress, we'll take more from you.

2. A change in corporate taxes. This, however it stated, as closing loopholes, as reform, whatever, will be an increase. Ah, but it's just those big evil corporations, so it's no big deal, right? Wrong. "There is no such thing as a corporate tax." Sure, they exist in the tax code and companies pay them. Guess where they get the money from? Their customers. Every cost a company has is passed on to their customers or, perhaps, their employees who don't see the raises or benefits they might have. So who gets hit? The little guy who works for and/or buys from those corporations. Sure sound regressive, doesn't it? Of course, this added price of goods is just "inflation" and that can be blamed on federal economic policies, nevermind if they actually deserve any of that blame.

3. A tripling of the cigarette tax. And who smokes cigarettes? In other years the DFL would be howling at how evil and regressive this tax is. But this time it's their idea, so it's not a regressive, but a means of "discouraging youth smoking" (and smoking in general). In other words, it's social engineering with the tax code.

So, it looks like two of the three tax changes the DFL is suggesting are the very kind they claim to be vehemently against.

Now, to be fair, the Republicans have also suggested a similar change in the cigarette tax, but it would be a swap: a much-hated health care tax would go away. And I admit a bias, I have a hard time considering something that discourages tobacco use to be all bad. There is problem of principle, though. "First they socially engineered the cigarettes, but I didn't smoke cigarettes, so I didn't care..." Alarmist? You might say so. But remember this: The earlier an alarm is raised, the easier it is to put out the fire.