Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jerkbait

Dedicated funding ???

37 posts in this topic

I asked this quetion in another forum and never did get it answered so I thouhgt i would ask here? The ammendment that we are voting on if passed will raise the sales tax 3/8% until 2034. What will happen after 2034? Will the funding just stop? Will we vote again? Will the sales tax go back down 3/8% (highly doubt it)? Hopefully someone on here can answer these questions. Another question also is why wouldn't this ammendment be a lifetime thing like other states have?

Thanks,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a better question is why does MN need this amendment when other states don't, yet those states do just fine managing their water and resources without increasing the citizen's taxes?

Not to mention that I highly doubt those states are funding the arts and heritage with public money either, which if passed, this proposed amendment will do as well.

Something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Limit. That is the problem I have with this bill is that some of the money is goig to arts and other items. There never is a truely dedicated bill. It's either how one party wants a bill they don't like get batted down or a bill they want to hide in there to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya there. This is not the greatest they could have done. The originals that Senator Lessard had intruduced were by far better. Dedicate a portion of the sales tax money that is already spent on the outdoor products. But the ???? I asked are something I have not seen answers for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for funding the outdoors. The problem I have with this bill is tagging it onto the State Constitution. This gives our government unlimited power to collect more taxes not knowing what it is going to pay for.

I am for RESPONSIBLE spending of our tax dollars, and I don't see that with this bill. I hate to say it, but I will vote against it, which I think is the reason it was choosen to be put forth in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I am more than in favor of dedicating some monies toward the environment, clean water, clean air, wildlife, etc. We complain about how farmers are "subsidized" but are willing to actually put money toward the arts. Farmers that participate in the "subsidy" become employees of the federal government and the government has an interest in terms of national security (food supply). The arts are hardly an issue of national security.

I have to draw the line when we can't work within the existing budget to accomplish this but must add more tax. The tax burden on MN citizens is roughly $11,000.00 on average. We are ranked 12th nationally.

Fuel costs have risen nearly 300% in the past four years. Food has increased 50% in the past year. Electricity has climbed 40% in the past year. I think it's time to control spending. If our legislature wants more money, they can do it with smart legislation and good money management that improves our economy. Improve our economy and the tax money will roll in.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually last time I checked overall we were ranked 12th but per person we were ranked 3rd in the nation. That was the ranking on the US census bureau. I am still curious if someone can answer my original questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Bob and I agree whole heartedly with your last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another concern about this amendment, in a list of many, is where exactly the money is going. I'm not talking about the percentages split up into the general areas, but rather these special interest groups and good ol' boy clubs who were/are campaigning hard for this to go through. I have a tough time believing they are just "doing it for our land and water", and have a sneaky suspicion that the public are going to get fleeced again if this passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a YES, for reasons discussed a while ago.

I do understand where and why some of you stand on the "no", but I am still a YES, and hope there are plenty more like me. smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the only thing I can figure is that unless acted upon, the amendment would follow through. That is, the tax would cease to exist and we would go back to 6.5%.

Here's the kicker. As you already eluded to, that's not likely to happen. The most likely scenario would be one of two possibilities.

1. The question would come to the people again to decide whether to extend the amendment either indefinately or for a fixed time.

2. The legislature would allow the amendment to terminate but they would reallocate the sales tax for other purposes. In other words, they would add it to the general fund.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually last time I checked overall we were ranked 12th but per person we were ranked 3rd in the nation. That was the ranking on the US census bureau. I am still curious if someone can answer my original questions.

I believe the information I found indicated that we were ranked 12th in terms of overall tax burden (local, state, and federal). Third in terms of the tax burden put on us by our state government alone.

I may have misinterpreted.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has me concerned is there are still alot of questions about the whole thing and not alot of answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the way they want it so it slides through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the way they want it so it slides through.

I guess I see it differently. I think it is that way so it DOES NOT go through. That way legislators can say, "We gave Natural Resources a chance, you voted it down".

The best defense is a good alibi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: LMITOUT
That's the way they want it so it slides through.

I guess I see it differently. I think it is that way so it DOES NOT go through. That way legislators can say, "We gave Natural Resources a chance, you voted it down".

The best defense is a good alibi

I agree with you farmboy, I've heard that elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suspect too many of us that vote no will do so because it has a 16-year term. While I think it is a factor to consider, I think most of us reject this because it requires a new tax rather than working with what we have. We can't just add more tax every time some group wants something new.

What's even worse is that this is happening at a time when most incomes are dropping relative to cost of living and considerably.

What about those who are in the lower income brackets? That number is climbing pretty fast. It goes without saying that the proposed amount is small and many of us won't even feel it much if at all. Unfortunately it is a sales tax and there is no deduction or tax excemption for sales tax, everyone pays. Those that struggle already to make ends meet will feel it even more. What's worse is that they also probably can't afford the licenses, permits, and other fees that are required to allow them to enjoy the very benefits this added tax will give. That's a double kick in the shorts for them.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the nay sayers.How should we try to clean our waters and preserve areas? And Has anyone tried to push it to any representatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about knocking these out of the budget for a start...and that was just this year!

* $80 Million for four new hockey arenas

* $11 Million for a polar bear and gorilla exhibit

* $13.2 Million to renovate and expand the Inver Hills Community College fine-arts building

* $7 Million for an Asian-Pacific Cultural Center

* $70 Million The Central Corridor light-rail line linking St. Paul and Minneapolis

* $24 Million for a new Bell Museum of Natural History on the St. Paul U of M campus

* $24 Million for a new DOT district headquarters in Mankato

* $22 Million for a new Minnesota planetarium and space discovery center (are you kidding me?)

* $250,000 for Winona to predesign facilities for the Shakespeare Festival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel that "naysayers" is a fair comment because people who are against this just want the state government to operate within their means. Just like all of us have to operate on a fixed income, we believe so should the government. Raising taxes for this is ridiculous, and creating a constitutional amendment is even worse.

The legislators couldn't work it out so they threw it back at the public to let them decide, essentially removing all blame from them. While I feel it's great that we have an opportunity to have a voice, there is a capitol building full of our "voices" that should have figured it out before it ever came to this. But, those voices are afraid of being "Dean Johnson'd", so they pushed it off to us.

I just hope the people realize this, vote NO in November, and tell them to take it back and get it worked out without raising taxes AGAIN to get it done. If they can't, well, I don't think it's a great loss as I believe there are many banking on this boondoggle to make some money rather than to actually do any good. Too many fingers in this pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the money was only going to Nature, I would be one hundred persent yes. Right now I'm on the fence. I don't like how they are working to get other causes getting a piece of this and calling it enviromental. I want to vote yes for the clean water sake, but I'm tired of games. I'm still on the fence on this one.

And Limit, I agree, there are a lot of those things they could cut out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the nay sayers.How should we try to clean our waters and preserve areas? And Has anyone tried to push it to any representatives?

Everyone pitch in? Could start with everyone picking up after themselves. Maybe volunteering some time to help the DNR clean up streams and lake shore. I am sure there is a list of things that can be done by volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also be 100% yes if this were for the outdoors/nature/hunting/fishing. Throw any piece of the arts in there and I will be 100% no. The arts is nothing more than a bribe to get the democrats to agree to the bill.

(This is all aside from the fact that there is more than enough money to do what we're trying to do without raising taxes, which is issue #1 with me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again How can we clean our waters? Any suggestions? And limit I see the other spending which I also am against,But your platform is always complaining .What can we Do about Our Waters and Outdoors to improve them? Should we stand Idle while they degrade more?,because people dislike other spending by our govt.?and refuse funding in the name of poor $$$ management?

And I dislike the arts included but I'll take the poison for the cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • He was talking about updating and upgrading our nuclear weapons,  which aren't related to the middle east.    Getting the 53 brigade combat teams up to readiness standards also will cost money.  
    • How much of that $6 trillion do you suppose is military spending?  I’d venture to guess a large amount of it.  Now while he talks about spending so much in the middle east and ignoring issues at home he apparently wants to add an additional $54 billion to the defense budget which will more than likely be funneled back into the middle eat one bomb at a time.   He might make sense in what he says from time to time but then his actions seem immediately contradict his words. Should we believe the words or the actions more?
    •  Decriminalization only makes small possession and usage kinda illegal.    Laws still have to be upheld.   Mexican cartels still would not be allowed to ship tons of cocaine over the boarder. Doctor still can't write false scripts.  Gangs still cannot run drug dens Staus quo     Just push for complete legalization. Regulate through the government. Lower the cost of product.     Cross your fingers you don't get a Russian heroine epidemic.    Freedom restored.      
    • "We spend $6 trillion in the Middle East, and we have potholes all over our highways and our roads"

      Every now and then it is hard to argue with Trump, the positives aren't many but he is not wrong about everything.
    •     Also, how do you explain the growth rate of U.S. incarcerations since Nixon began the War on Drugs in 1971?   You don't think there is big money involved in prisons?       http://fox6now.com/2017/02/25/private-prison-stocks-up-100-since-president-trumps-win/          
    • DALLAS TRADES BENN to Montreal !!!!!!   Jordie   for a 4th round pick and some no-name....Jordie was bad and playing worse lately
    •   He won't ask anyone's advice - that's a big part of the problem.  But judging by his actions and words, he fully intends to return to the criminalization/prison approach.  You know, the method that was a complete failure in the past.   Why wouldn't pharma be worried about heroin and meth?  They make versions of both, so it is direct competition.  There is also real life evidence to suggest that marijuana can be used as a replacement for opioids for pain, so that is a reason for them to be opposed to the legalization of weed, also.  Do you have a better explanation as to why Trump wants to step up enforcement of federal laws against legal purveyors of marijuana according to their state law, rather than simply changing the FDA/DEA classification?                   They would be comparable, except they have spent close to a trillion dollars on the War on Drugs since Nixon signed it into law,      
    •   Is this speculation or do you have a source for this information?    
    • Without media, you will only get what news from the party in control that they wish to give you. With no freedom of the press, no matter what they say, you will eventually lose more than the 1rst. amendment.  Let's see what happens when the President addresses Congress and if it's a rally speech or a substance speech with policy? If it's just rah-rah??, with the corrupt  media,----make up your own mind.  
    • If you ever want to feel like a puny human, go mess with those big boys. Nice pics!
  • Our Sponsors