Thread View: mn.general
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by kahunaaccidentale
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:00
MN's rebate of sales taxes: Cf. Alaska Permanent Fund, or no?
Author: kahunaaccidentale
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:00
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:00
30 lines
2096 bytes
2096 bytes
Good idea, using sales tax revenue as the basis of any future Minnesota tax rebate. After all, such might certainly be especially beneficial upon especially the Lower Classes as would not otherwise benefit from a rebate linked to income taxation. However: I have to wonder, considering the rumoured implications of IRS policy on an income-tax rebate, whether there may be parallels between Minnesota's proposed sales-tax rebate and the Alaska Permanent Fund (revenue therefrom derived from the interest income generated from the State of Alaska's share of oil, natural-gas and mineral leases, invested in a manner prescribed by law). Or whether there might be some interesting ideas that Minnesota might want to adapt from the Alaska Permanent Fund (annual dividends therefrom considered taxable income) in adopting a sales-tax-linked rebate policy, and especially such as would avoid the risk of such being taxable income (cf. Alaska Permament Fund dividends). What do you think? ******************************************************************* Sincerely, KAHUNA ACCIDENTALE OF THE DELLS (N.B. Spammers beware: You will be held liable in the amount of $500 for any E-spam sent you per a recent Federal court ruling.) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Re: MN's rebate of sales taxes: Cf. Alaska Permanent Fund, or no?
Author: Aaron
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:00
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 00:00
53 lines
2680 bytes
2680 bytes
The Permanent Fund. Any money the state gets will permanently not be
yours.
kahunaaccidentale@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Good idea, using sales tax revenue as the basis of any future Minnesota tax
> rebate.
>
> After all, such might certainly be especially beneficial upon especially the
> Lower Classes as would not otherwise benefit from a rebate linked to income
^^^^^^^^^^^^
But they didn't overpay taxes. The ones who got soaked should get the
rebate.
> taxation.
>
> However:
>
> I have to wonder, considering the rumoured implications of IRS policy on an
> income-tax rebate, whether there may be parallels between Minnesota's proposed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you didn't itemize in the prior year, you don't pay taxes on rebates!
> sales-tax rebate and the Alaska Permanent Fund (revenue therefrom derived from
> the interest income generated from the State of Alaska's share of oil,
> natural-gas and mineral leases, invested in a manner prescribed by law).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
read- spent by politicians to buy votes
>
> Or whether there might be some interesting ideas that Minnesota might want to
> adapt from the Alaska Permanent Fund (annual dividends therefrom considered
> taxable income) in adopting a sales-tax-linked rebate policy, and especially
> such as would avoid the risk of such being taxable income (cf. Alaska
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Give me my money back and I'll pay the taxes. Just give it back!
> Permament Fund dividends.)
>
> What do you think?
> *******************************************************************
> Sincerely,
> KAHUNA ACCIDENTALE OF THE DELLS
> (N.B. Spammers beware: You will be held liable in the amount of $500 for any
> E-spam sent you per a recent Federal court ruling.)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads