top of page

Senate passes tax bill of 'broken promises,' says Weber

Minnesota District 21 Sen. Bill Weber is decrying a tax bill passed this week by Senate Democrats as legislation filled with broken promises.


Weber, the lead Republican on the Senate Taxes Committee, said in a press release that the $17.5 billion surplus, formerly $19 billion before the accounting change, will not stop Democrats from significantly increasing taxes.


He added: “I honestly do not believe that this bill will help our communities to develop the businesses and jobs that they need. I also do not see how this legislation will stop the migration of our retired people from Minnesota. The fact is that there are Democrats who campaigned on the full elimination of the tax on social security income. Every Republican senator would have put up votes for a clean repeal of this burdensome tax. Yet Democrats chose to break their promise to Minnesotans by not joining us in demanding this change.”


Weber added that the tax bill includes a controversial tax known as “worldwide” or “global” reporting. He explained this means that any business with a presence in Minnesota will be forced to report all income, even that from outside Minnesota, in a way that he said no other state in the country or the world requires. He said says California tried this approach 30 years ago...

"The retaliatory moves of businesses in Japan and England and other countries made them soon realize that they could not afford to do this," Weber said.

Minneapolis Democrat Scott Dibble responded it's a matter of fairness, not only to individual Minnesota taxpayers but also small- and medium-sized businesses:

"They don't have the large armies of accountants and lawyers who can set up these shell companies in other countries," Dibble said.

Weber noted that Senate Republicans during floor debate attempted to offer a number of amendments that were either struck down or ruled out of order. One success was amending the bill to expand the list of eligible baby products for a tax exemption.



112 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page