Wisconsin's Tax Burden if $15.2 Billion Tax Increase Passes by Curtis S. Dubay Earlier this week the Wisconsin Senate passed a $15.2 billion tax increase- which if enacted would be by far the largest tax increase ever enacted by any state. See our blog post about it here. When states propose tax increases, we are often asked to calculate what their new tax burden would be after the tax hike. We usually resist these requests because it is almost impossible to predict how the state's tax burden ranking will change because other states are making changes at the same time. In Wisconsin's case, however, there was no doubt about how its tax burden would change compared to the rest of the nation. Wisconsin's tax burden is 12.3 percent of state income in 2007-- ranking it 7th highest in the nation. Wisconsin has ranked in the top ten of our tax burden study every year for the 37 years we have calculated them-from 1970 to 2007. 7th is the lowest rank for Wisconsin since 1980. However, if the $15.2 billion tax increase were in effect for 2007, Wisconsin's tax burden would increase to 19.3 percent and rank 1st- 5.2 percentage points higher than Vermont's 14.1 percent tax burden that currently ranks highest nationally. If we count the other tax increases passed by the Senate (approximately $1.6 billion more) Wisconsin's tax burden will be 20.1 percent. To give you an idea of how big that is, the federal government will take 21.7 percent of the nation's income in taxes in 2007. If the Wisconsin Senate's plan becomes law, Wisconsin taxpayers will face the highest state and local tax burden ever, and their tax burden-federal, state and local-- will exceed 40 percent of their income.
After reading yet another concern about the possibility of racial profiling occurring if the Police are to pull over, break-up gang groups, etc. whenever loitering is seen taking place, it led me to off to these thoughts.
Is it really racial profiling? Is that just a couple of words put together to try to scare or guilt people from looking at misdeeds, creating a diversion from the real concerns? Maybe not, I would say that there are probably a few situations where racial profiling is indeed an issue. Example: Getting pulled over in your car simply because you are non-caucasian and driving through a suburb (where you could very probably live) is really inexcusable. That's just one that I'm going to mention.
But let's look at the situations here and let me ask you? Let's first talk the Mayfair Mall - how many skirmishes and was it one "racial group" in particular? Yes.
The shootings, stabbings, killings, etc. do these happen most often in certain neighborhoods, public and private between certain "racial groups"? And, these little kids that have been the most recent innocent victims of some of these crimes are paying the penalty with their lives or struggling to keep their lives if they're fortunate enough not be to killed out right. I just mention the specific instances with these children being shot as it is most recent. So when more of these kids and other people's lives are at stake is it really racial profiling? Or simply using the information at hand, the trends, the patterns, etc. to try to limit or prevent these actions from happening in the future?
Everyone that lives in the U.S. should have the freedom to go where they want to go, dress as they want to dress, live, work, etc. But when those freedoms are abused, the rights of others being infringed upon by those behaviors, laws being broken, people (CHILDREN) being killed - then it's time to stop throwing the "race cards" out and solve the problems. And if the pattern shows specific areas, gangs, "racial groups" that are prone to these behaviors that puts responsible citizens amongst them, and around them at risk, then let the Police do their jobs and try to prevent any further issues if they even suspect something brewing.
This is my first blog. So in looking over the daily posts over the last month I wanted to ask this question of seasoned bloggers.
Why is it that a blog is posted on a specific topic, say smoking, and then 4-5 more blogs appear on the same subject? Wouldn't it be best to contain all arguments on the original blog already posted instead of scattering the thought processes out between all of them?
Just looking for some insight on why there are so many repeats when 1 would suffice. I can understand if you want to branch out into a specific area of a topic already mentioned. I just don't understand the exact repeats.
Any input for me?
Thanks!
