|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
MADDOG 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 06 2008,9:51 pm |
|
   |
One thing many of you probably don't know is that on November 4, you will have the choice of voting yourself a tax increase to fund special interests and the "arts".
This year when you enter the voting booth, you not only get to decide who you want as the next President, you will have the opportunity to decide if you want to pay more sales tax.
There is a constitutional amendment on the ballot to increase the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent to 6.875%.
By putting this to a vote and amending this tax to the constitution, special interest groups who are supporting it will be guaranteed this money will always be earmarked to their pet projects.
For years now, people supporting the arts and enertainment have lobbied the state to give them more money. Several in the recreational industry and lodging have done the same. Each and every time, their bills were defeated as special interests. Now they are working together and have put together a bill that they think voters have a soft spot for....the environment. So this constitutional amendment will give them their "pet" money by passifying the majority.
The tax if passed will raise aproximately $300 million dollars per year.
Distribution is
33 percent to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife;
33 percent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation (at least five percent of the this amount must be spent only to protect drinking water sources)
14.25 percent to support the state’s parks and trails;
19.75 percent for the arts and cultural heritage purposes.
These first two areas are the meat these two special interest groups are using to get them the funds they could not get otherwise.
Pure pork barrel politics.
It only adds insult to injury with our economy in shambles. Don't forget. If you vote this sales tax through, you're adding it to the %7-800 million in gas tax increases, higher vehicle licensing and property tax increases.
This constitutional amendment is SO BAD, that even the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Farm Bureau and of course the Taxpayers League of Minnesota are against it.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Santorini
Group: Members
Posts: 2015
Joined: Nov. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 06 2008,10:04 pm |
|
 |
MADDDOG,
Thanks for the heads up.
Appreciate it. 
--------------
"Things turn out best for those who make the best
of the way things turned out." Jack Buck
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
ICU812
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 06 2008,10:48 pm |
|
|
I am all for the money to go to the above. That said, don't vote yes. Our elected leaders do not need more money to fund this, the money IS there but is spent other ways. Last time we voted for the dedicated money to roads..............................then they voted to raise the gas tax..............we were taken.Period.
Don't vote us into being triple taxed. It only makes it easier for South Dakota to attract business due to lower taxes.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 07 2008,1:12 am |
|
|
Wonderful.
The economy's in the toilet, money's already tight, and they want MORE money.
It never ends. And these morons in office have no clue what it's like to be squeaking by on five figures.
Vote out the incumbents. Nothing sends a message like that does.
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
grassman
Group: Members
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 07 2008,7:51 am |
|
|
I would have been fine with the first three, when they added on the arts, it lost my vote.
--------------
git er done!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 07 2008,8:26 am |
|
|
Robin Brown and Eric Larson...give us your thoughts please and if you support this or not. A simple yes or no would satisfy me...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 07 2008,9:49 am |
|
|
Just voted...it's not worded that way but it starts out with something like "would you like to dedicate funding to protect clean drinking water...etc..etc... It isn't until the very end that they mention anything about the cost.
Nice set up on their part...the average joe will read the first line and vote yes thinking who wouldn't want clean water. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
ICU812
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 07 2008,9:58 am |
|
|
QUOTE The question that will be on the 2008 General Election ballot will state: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?" Yes ...... No ...... Link
250-300 Million per year or 11 billion over 25 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
