Editorial: Tax on services: It's not ...

Editorial: Tax on services: It's not about Big Business

There are 20 comments on the TwinCities story from Feb 24, 2013, titled Editorial: Tax on services: It's not about Big Business. In it, TwinCities reports that:

There was recently a front-page analysis piece headlined "Dayton, big business square off" in the Minneapolis paper.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.

non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#1 Feb 24, 2013
Editorial: Tax on services: It's not about Big Business
Pioneer Press
twincities.com
Posted: 02/23/2013 12:01:00 AM CST
February 23, 2013 9:41 PM GMTUpdated: 02/23/2013 03:41:11 PM CST

There was recently a front-page analysis piece headlined "Dayton, big business square off" in the Minneapolis paper. That "big business" thing is, in our view, a fundamental misunderstanding of the enormous problems created by Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed taxes on services.

However painful and counterproductive these taxes are for big businesses, they will hurt small businesses even more.

Big businesses have the resources to avoid or adjust to these taxes. The multinational corporations based in Minnesota, generally speaking, are adding jobs elsewhere, not here. And, as the governor and Legislature make doing business in Minnesota more burdensome and costly, these large businesses will continue to build operations in places that are more welcoming. Let's not be judgmental about that. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the people who run these large businesses to do so as efficiently as possible. In effect, for CEOs of large businesses, it is their job not to incur unnecessary costs -- including unnecessary taxation.

But the smaller businesses, those with fewer resources, those based entirely in Minnesota, these are the businesses that will pay the heaviest price. And ultimately, to survive, these businesses will pass along the cost of the taxation to you the consumer -- if they have the power to raise prices -- or they will cut costs, which means fewer workers and/or shorter workweeks. This is the inevitable result of these taxes.

The beauty of it,

----------

Advertisement

----------
from the administration's point of view, is that it's an invisible tax. You the consumer will pay it as a result of the higher prices that businesses will be forced to charge. And some of you will lose jobs or work fewer hours per week. The happy talk and fog of nuance produced by administration spokespeople will not change the ultimate impact of these taxes. You the consumer will pay them in the form of higher prices and/or payrolls will be cut to cover the added cost. And some businesses -- those that can't pass along the hidden tax or cut enough jobs -- will go out of business.
Most businesses must at the very least maintain their operating margins. Publicly traded companies are accountable to shareholders, and private companies are accountable to the banks that back them. If the administration passes taxes that cut into these margins -- which, let's be clear, in the world of small business are generally not high to begin with -- there will be consequences. Happy talk from the administration, the "fair share" talk, the ifs ands and buts, won't change what actually happens in the real world.

Speaking of fair: Is it fair, considering recent years of good crops, high commodity prices and continuing federal subsidies, that the small businesses known as farmers would retain exemptions for some things that other small businesses are taxed on? We're not arguing for taxing farmers. We are pointing out that the reasons the administration wants to shelter farmers are equally if not more valid when it comes to other small businesses. It's fashionable these days to raise taxes in the name of "fairness," then pick and choose who pays the fairness tax and who does not. Ultimately, the people will pay these taxes in the form of higher prices and lost jobs. To suggest anything else would be unfair.

Governor Goofy has no clue, other than working for a public school as a substitute for a year or so in New York before they let him go, he has no business experience. I liked it better when he just hid under his desk.
Bushwhacked

Seattle, WA

#2 Feb 24, 2013
I liked it better, when children like you showed their BETTERS respect. Of course, intelligent debate calls for non-sensical name calling....right ?? LMAOROTFU~!

Post this SAME thread a few more times, it makes a lotta sense, to cheap losers ~
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Feb 25, 2013
Big businesses have the resources to avoid or adjust to these taxes. The multinational corporations based in Minnesota, generally speaking, are adding jobs elsewhere, not here. And, as the governor and Legislature make doing business in Minnesota more burdensome and costly, these large businesses will continue to build operations in places that are more welcoming. Let's not be judgmental about that. It is the fiduciary responsibility of the people who run these large businesses to do so as efficiently as possible. In effect, for CEOs of large businesses, it is their job not to incur unnecessary costs -- including unnecessary taxation.

But the smaller businesses, those with fewer resources, those based entirely in Minnesota, these are the businesses that will pay the heaviest price. And ultimately, to survive, these businesses will pass along the cost of the taxation to you the consumer -- if they have the power to raise prices -- or they will cut costs, which means fewer workers and/or shorter workweeks. This is the inevitable result of these taxes.

The beauty of it,
from the administration's point of view, is that it's an invisible tax. You the consumer will pay it as a result of the higher prices that businesses will be forced to charge. And some of you will lose jobs or work fewer hours per week. The happy talk and fog of nuance produced by administration spokespeople will not change the ultimate impact of these taxes. You the consumer will pay them in the form of higher prices and/or payrolls will be cut to cover the added cost. And some businesses -- those that can't pass along the hidden tax or cut enough jobs -- will go out of business
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#4 Feb 25, 2013
I liked it better, when children like you showed their BETTERS respect. Of course, intelligent debate calls for non-sensical name calling....right ?? LMAOROTFU~!

Post this SAME thread a few more times, it makes a lotta sense, to cheap losers ~
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Feb 25, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
I liked it better, when children like you showed their BETTERS respect. Of course, intelligent debate calls for non-sensical name calling....right ?? LMAOROTFU~!
Post this SAME thread a few more times, it makes a lotta sense, to cheap losers ~
Good one, slowlife. Try to keep up occasionally, and when you post, try to have a point, it makes it more interesting for your non-existent readers/followers.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#7 Feb 25, 2013
Looks like you're a follower, dumb*ss ! LMAOROTFU~! Hey red, this putz says she has followers, I simply see multiple monikers, how about you ???

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#8 Feb 25, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Good one, slowlife. Try to keep up occasionally, and when you post, try to have a point, it makes it more interesting for your non-existent readers/followers.
"The beauty of it,
from the administration's point of view, is that it's an invisible tax. You the consumer will pay it as a result of the higher prices that businesses will be forced to charge. And some of you will lose jobs or work fewer hours per week"

And the low information voters will place blame for this squarely on "big business" and not the legislators who vote it in to place or the governor who signs off on it.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Feb 25, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Looks like you're a follower, dumb*ss ! LMAOROTFU~! Hey red, this putz says she has followers, I simply see multiple monikers, how about you ???
Follower? Unlikely choice of words, slowlife. Who started this thread, who responded? Your reading comprehension is really holding you back on a lot of this.

Try this, it won't help your reading comprehension all at once, but someone with the limited understanding you have has to start somewhere.

First, review your mistakes.

Amused Slew wrote:
Is their a Aircraft plant in Mn, I don't know about ??? LMAOROTFU~! As for "junk", are you a resident of MN ?
Stupid....Maxamillion DA MORON wrote:
<quoted text>
"Boeing will never fly the 787..."
"All this rework may take 2+ years."
"NOT a quick fix by any means."

Then practice the correct usage.
You might want to try "there" next time.

Better English Lessons

They're/their/there
Click on the buttons until you find the correct answer

http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.h ...

Work on these and get back to me. Usually, before a word that begins with a vowel, we use "an" instead of "a", but that is a lesson for after you master there/their/they're.

As for an airline company in Minnesota, your question was presented as a rhetorical one. I can get you a definition of rhetorical as well, mr low integrity poster.

Let me know when you master this lesson so we can move on to others.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#10 Feb 25, 2013
Yeah, we get taxes are bad, debt is bad, and you're using multiple monikers to pretend money comes by MAGIC !!! LMAOROTfu~! GROW UP !!!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Feb 26, 2013
But the smaller businesses, those with fewer resources, those based entirely in Minnesota, these are the businesses that will pay the heaviest price. And ultimately, to survive, these businesses will pass along the cost of the taxation to you the consumer -- if they have the power to raise prices -- or they will cut costs, which means fewer workers and/or shorter workweeks. This is the inevitable result of these taxes.

The beauty of it,
from the administration's point of view, is that it's an invisible tax. You the consumer will pay it as a result of the higher prices that businesses will be forced to charge. And some of you will lose jobs or work fewer hours per week. The happy talk and fog of nuance produced by administration spokespeople will not change the ultimate impact of these taxes. You the consumer will pay them in the form of higher prices and/or payrolls will be cut to cover the added cost. And some businesses -- those that can't pass along the hidden tax or cut enough jobs -- will go out of business.
Most businesses must at the very least maintain their operating margins. Publicly traded companies are accountable to shareholders, and private companies are accountable to the banks that back them. If the administration passes taxes that cut into these margins -- which, let's be clear, in the world of small business are generally not high to begin with -- there will be consequences. Happy talk from the administration, the "fair share" talk, the ifs ands and buts, won't change what actually happens in the real world.
Fred

Seattle, WA

#12 Feb 26, 2013
Sevice, Guiness, Connicuit ?? LMAOROTFU~!

While you blather about your buddies mistake ??

WHATEVER!! LMAOROTFU~!

What a complete loser...

Display MORE DISHONESTY, dumb*ss ~! LMAOROTFU~!
L I b E r a l i Sm

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Feb 26, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Yeah, we get taxes are bad, debt is bad, and you're using multiple monikers to pretend money comes by MAGIC !!! LMAOROTfu~! GROW UP !!!
Hey, you are starting to see the light! Although, I'm not sure where your magic issue with money comes from. I guess that it is a product of your indoctrination - the right earns their money and the left expect it to just show up from somewhere.
Fred

Seattle, WA

#14 Feb 26, 2013
QUESTIONS THAT PERPLEX TEABAGGERS
1.How many radiators does it take to condense 200 gallons of Moonshine?
2.How Long it will take 9 kids to Build a Bomb Shelter?
3.If A man and a Woman Get Hitched in Texas and move to San Francisco are they still first cousins?
4.Is Sarah Palin going to visit our County Fair this year ?
scooby slew

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Feb 26, 2013
Fred wrote:
QUESTIONS THAT PERPLEX TEABAGGERS
1.How many radiators does it take to condense 200 gallons of Moonshine?
2.How Long it will take 9 kids to Build a Bomb Shelter?
3.If A man and a Woman Get Hitched in Texas and move to San Francisco are they still first cousins?
4.Is Sarah Palin going to visit our County Fair this year ?
To be the amused slewche, or not to be the amused slewche, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of the outrageous bushwhacked,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of smart liberals,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to?'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, will any remember you were once the spell check princess of topix?
Fred

Seattle, WA

#16 Feb 26, 2013
75 Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage

Source: New York Times

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

... Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.

... Some high-profile Republicans who support same-sex marriage — including Laura Bush, the former first lady; Dick Cheney, the former vice president; and Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state — were not on the list as of Monday.

But the presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#17 Feb 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Good one, slowlife. Try to keep up occasionally, and when you post, try to have a point, it makes it more interesting for your non-existent readers/followers.
Interesting how slewche clings to the idea that he/she/it is somehow better then everyone. Another symptom of a weak, deluded, psyche.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#18 Feb 26, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text> Your reading comprehension is really holding you back on a lot of this.
Try this, it won't help your reading comprehension all at once, but someone with the limited understanding you have has to start somewhere.

others.
I have on several occasions recommended that honey slew slew look for the RIF trucks in he/she/its neighborhood. Alas, my pleas seem to have been ignored. But it is a running theory that the issue with reading comprehension is due in part to lack of education and in part selective.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#19 Feb 26, 2013
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/el...

In your case, WHAT MIND ???
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#20 Feb 27, 2013
The beauty of it, from the administration's point of view, is that it's an invisible tax. You the consumer will pay it as a result of the higher prices that businesses will be forced to charge. And some of you will lose jobs or work fewer hours per week. The happy talk and fog of nuance produced by administration spokespeople will not change the ultimate impact of these taxes. You the consumer will pay them in the form of higher prices and/or payrolls will be cut to cover the added cost. And some businesses -- those that can't pass along the hidden tax or cut enough jobs -- will go out of business.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#21 Feb 27, 2013
Sevice, Guiness, Connicuit ?? LMAOROTFU~!

While you blather about your buddies mistake ??

WHATEVER!! LMAOROTFU~!

What a complete loser...

Display MORE DISHONESTY, dumb*ss ~! LMAOROTFU~!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Governors Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min red and right 173,575
News Chris Christie wants to track immigrants like F... 18 min Sal 4
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 20 min Messenger 3,001
News US presidential elections: Republican candidate... 22 min wild child 10
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 28 min Terra Firma 308
News Deputy fatally shot from behind at Houston gas ... 1 hr More farts 33
News Cruz opposes 'birthright citizenship' 1 hr Swedenforever 2
More from around the web