Sunday, June 21, 2009

Democrats in Legislature split over capital gains tax break - JSOnline

Democrats in Legislature split over capital gains tax break - JSOnline

This split between the gas tax versus capital gains is quite interesting. The current split is between Democrats, rather than between the parties. Why?

What are these revenues for? Are they targeted to fund particular functions? Which?

What policy change was adopted several years ago that helped create the problem with funding this function?

How should particular functions be funded? Should the revenue be directly linked to the function or should all functions be paid for from the entire revenue pool?

Compare this with the traditional use of property taxes for K-12 education. How has education funding evolved over time? With what conseqences?

1 comment:

  1. To do away witht he capital gains tax would be to do away with Wisconsin's primary investors. I do not believe that there is an inherent relationship between the gas and capital gains tax, except for the stock in oil companies that individuals may invest in. More specifically, I believe that the gas tax is intended to help clear the budget deficit, by offsetting the percentage of captial to be gained by Wisconsin investors. This would balance the cost of oil/gas for everyone, while limiting the tax that could be imposed of fuel costs. Doyke seems to believe that oil compaines can be legally prohibited form raising the tax on gas. Companies would do this because that would help to cover their state tax costs. That is what made oil companies report record profits over the last several years.


Comments are moderated. Spam will be rejected so don't bother.