I don't know much about it, however as I often say. It seems DEMs want to ensure the rich retired wealthy people are highly motivated to move their residency to another state. :-)
The good news !!! I have 3 daughters so I will probably never be rich. :-) Except in the love and hugs... :-)
26 comments:
A while back, a lot of friends of mine were the beneficiaries of a transaction that made them wealthy. They were overnight multi millionaires. A lot of them moved out of the state to no income tax jurisdictions. That's who we have the choice of competing with, not states with lower taxes, rather states with no taxes at all. Do we want to play that game? Can we afford to play that game?
==Hiram
Common sense would say that if you give people value for their money, they will willingly pay you. Minnesota is so far beyond that it isn't funny. Spending on education is only slightly above the national average, for example, yet we have the highest achievement gap in the country. And we have the third highest welfare spending in the nation. Some people fail to see the value in that, and overall, the MN state budget has increased by about 8% per year, ABOVE inflation and population, for the last 50 or so years. Has our state-run "quality of life" improved that much?
That is an interesting question...
I guess I would say that "quality of life" has improved for many Minnesotans since 1960.
I came up with an average annual increase of 7.76% since 1960.
However we are not comparing apples to apples.
- healthcare is VERY different now than in 1960
- special ed kids and disabled adults are now cared for by public dollars
- education expectations are much higher
- pollution levels are greatly decreased
- etc
Another way to look at it-- total spending is now about 15 times what it would be if it had only kept pace with inflation and population. We are spending public money on MORE things than we did back then, but does that contribute to "quality of life" or is it just more public spending--public rather than private? Education expectations may be higher, but achievement has pretty much remained stagnant. Pollution decreased, but that didn't cost us anything, except for the infinitesimal CO2 reduction (and CO2 is not a pollutant) bought with tax subsidies, and the ADDED tax on your electric bill because of the mandates. The problem here is that there is no limit to the amount of "good" that liberals/Democrats are willing to do with YOUR money. Raising taxes just increases spending, so cutting taxes seems the common sense solution. Not that that matters with politicians in charge.
I forgot to note that the state's population also went from
1960: 3,413,864
to
2019: 5,303,925
I assume MN's budget changes mirror the national changes.
In 1960 our country spent little on healthcare, education, pensions, special education and welfare. Now we spend a lot more in those areas.
I am pretty sure the poor, disabled, old and unhealthy truly appreciate the services they now have access to.
And don't forget that MN is no different than most states. :-(
Healthcare is eating our lunch as costs increase and residents get older.
Back in 1960, heart disease and cancer were a death sentence. Now we can run a lot of tests, inject chemicals, install new parts, etc. All at a cost.
Besides old folks with joint issues would be given a cane. Now they are given new joints.
Definitely some huge "quality of life" improvements.
So, by your lights, having the taxpayer pay for everybody's medical care means the same dollars buy a LOT more medical care, is that correct? Or is it possible that having government give us "free" healthcare is the same as having it give us free food and housing, where the system costs MORE, and individual effort is LESS? That is not a "quality of life" by any humanistic definition.
I'll let you argue that with folks who used to suffer and now thrive.
Just because it costs you a bit more does not mean that the net improvement was not positive.
Do you consider it a positive that heartless government check that deprives people of the human dignity of seeking out and working for a living? That enables rampant single motherhood and punishes family formation? Happy to help the less fortunate in many ways, but just handing them a check is harming giver and receiver alike. And there is no reason MN should have the 3rd highest benefits in the country.
Sorry Jerry... Providing people with a base income in no way prevents them from working to subsidize it... And in this case they get to keep this "child voucher" and use it as they wish...
I figured you would be a big supporter... More money for your private highly selective schools. :-)
You seem to have pulled the bait and switch. VAST difference between no-strings-attached child welfare payments and school vouchers. And you think there is nothing that prevents a welfare recipient from seeking work? Have you completely ignored the reality of the "welfare cliff"? Now if you want to talk about a negative income tax, where you can increase your income by adding most of what you earn to your welfare payment, decreasing as your total income rises, we can argue how "progressive" that should be.
More on the subject, why should ANYBODY be taxed to provide for an indolent adult who will not make an effort for their kids?
Jerry,
The "welfare cliff" is gone with this proposal.
Most everyone gets this money. It is like a negative tax for people who make and keep babies.
But like I is often the case... You did not read the linked articles. Oh well.
Actually, I often do read your links, but very rarely do I find one consistent with fundamental logic. For example, "we spend a lot more..." means that GOVERNMENT spends on these things which used to be covered by individual consumers. Put simply, government corrupts the free market that holds down prices, and lets taxpayer money go to inefficiencies and waste. A recent poll shows the average Minnesotan believes that 30% of the MN budget is waste and abuse.
Guaranteed income? Look at where it has been tried, and you find no difference in economic result from this government spending. In a few places the money has gone from the individual recipients to infrastructure improvements for the community, but that sort of government spending should be more direct and thereby more effective.
As I said... It is just like your vouchers...
Actually, it is the opposite. Government-guaranteed income decouples income from consumer choices, while vouchers enable consumer choice. Do you really want to justify MORE than the 30% wasteful spending government already does?
This is supposed to deficit neutral and Parents can use it for schooling.
And the Parent(s) will want to get the most for their kids...
Therefore schools will need to perform or the kids will move to Private schools.
It sounds just like your voucher argument.
Does it hurt when you twist around to flip flop like this? :-)
Of course I am against handouts without accountability and school vouchers, so I am mostly against this.
Let me get this straight. You applaud food stamps but strongly oppose school vouchers?
Please explain "deficit neutral" guaranteed income to me. How can giving away millions of dollars that government does not have, to people who were apparently fine without it, NOT result in a deficit?
If you mean vouchers are deficit neutral, that could be. I've always argued that the taxpayers' money should follow the child, rather than going to the school.
Actually I am not a big fan of food stamps or vouchers...
But I am a fan of making sure kids are fed, no matter how screwed up their parents are.
I don't know, read the article.
The money does follow the children to public schools... Just not to Privates...
And again... $300/mth / child could pay for Private schools. Just what you have always wanted. Make it easier for lucky kids to run from unlucky kids.
So again. Why do you not support what you have always advocated for?
"The money does follow the children to public schools... Just not to Privates..."
Sorry, but that statement has absolutely no basis in fact. SCHOOLS receive the money, based on some formula in which "a kid is a kid" isn't even remotely true.
And if you are trying to say that UBI will be used to send kids to private school, please explain why it is called "Universal Basic Income" to the adult, with no mention or expectation that it will help with schooling. It's like giving money to the school instead of the student, and expecting miracles.
Please show me where I have advocated giving money to people with no strings whatsoever. It is bad enough you disagree, but telling me I already agree with you ought to stretch your credibility beyond limit.
There is no accountability on those school vouchers you promote.
Remember your logic is that "the parents will demand results from the school".
So I am certain that the parents will use this money in the best interest of their children.
Do you disagree? Maybe higher quality / educational daycare? Maybe tutors to help them if they can not support their child's homework needs?
Charter Schools QNA
"There is no accountability on those school vouchers you promote."
How do you know this? How CAN you know this? The very act of choosing a school and handing over a $10,000 check creates tremendous accountability in the eyes of parents and schools alike. And what many academic studies miss is that these parents may or may not see increased student achievement (by whose standard), but they are happier just having the choice. Why do you insist they not have it?
Are you claiming that the current public school system is accountable to parents?
"handing over a $10,000 check creates tremendous accountability in the eyes of parents and schools alike"
And yet you seem to be saying that parents won't be accountable with $300/mth?
Again... Romney's plan is very similar to yours...
Are you going to give out school vouchers in the amount of $300/month, or are you switching horses to a no-strings-attached BBI idea? Parents, or anybody else, do not have to be "accountable" in any way for their UBI check. That's the whole idea. School vouchers, OTOH, MUST be used to educate a child.
I don't know Romney's plan, have no desire to argue either for or against it. Stick to basics-- UBI-- no strings and bad idea, Vouchers, lots of strings and therefore good idea. Taxing Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul, but sooner or later Peter will find something better to do with his shekels.
Your argument over the past decade has been that you trust parents to use tax payer money for the best interests of their children...
It is true that the parents will have a bit more latitude here... But do you trust parent(s) or not?
Here is another discussion of the topic
And another
What the heck are you blathering on about? I trust parents to respond sensibly to the incentives offered them. Give them money that can only be used to educate their kid, and they will use the money to educate the kid. Give them money simply because they have a kid, and they will spend it however they please and the kid can shift for themselves. And probably get a new sibling.
Post a Comment