Tax breaks appear likely

12/08/2005

Don Davis
Forum Communications Co.
West Central Tribune
Published Thursday, December 08, 2005

ST. PAUL — Minnesota taxpayers should get a break and school districts should get their state aid earlier, Minnesota House Republicans agreed on Wednesday.

In their first planning meeting for the 2006 legislative session, which begins March 1, House Republicans generally agreed a $317 million tax relief fund should live up to its name, House Speaker Steve Sviggum said.

They also want existing law to remain unchanged so schools get $701 million of state aid earlier than they have in recent years, the Kenyon Republican added.

Comments made after Wednesday’s closed GOP House meeting are the first harbingers of what Minnesotans can likely expect from the session.

The Republicans made no specific decisions, but those in the meeting said they did agree on overall concepts. They are to follow up with a January meeting to target some issues.

A budget report last week showed $317 million in a tax relief account lawmakers set up. While that is just 1 percent of the state’s two-year budget, Rep. Morrie Lanning said it could provide relief for a lot of taxpayers.

Near the top of Republicans’ agenda is an income tax change that could benefit a half-million Minnesotans, the Moorhead Republican said. Congress gave married couples a tax break on their federal income tax, but unless Minnesota follows suit those middle-income Minnesotans will pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars more.

An income tax provision passed years ago to ensure that the wealthy were paying their fair share, known as the alternative minimum tax, also could cost middle-income Minnesotans if it is not changed. Lanning said families with incomes of $40,000 to $70,000 are especially at risk.

Republicans said property taxes are destined to be lowered, but they did not discuss specifically who would benefit.

In a surprise to some, many representatives emerged from their meeting saying they should vote on building a University of Minnesota football stadium and Minnesota Twins baseball park next year. The conventional wisdom is that legislators are unlikely to approve a stadium in an election year given voters’ negative reaction to some lawmakers who supported stadiums in the past.