.
Wisconsin has fallen from the top 10 in terms of taxes. The Badger State is now 11th.
Did Wisconsin cut taxes? No, other states raised them, which caused Wisconsin’s ranking to fall. Taxes as a share of personal income in Wisconsin rose slightly from 12.2 percent in 2004 to 12.3 percent in 2006, while the national average rose from 11 percent to 11.6 percent over that same period.
What does that mean for Wisconsin taxpayers? Assuming everyone paid the exact same percentage of his or her income in taxes, it means the Wisconsin family earning $100,000 per year pays $700 more in taxes than the national average. For a family making $50,000, it’s $350. Sound like a lot? Well, an automobile that skids on an unplowed January road can erase those savings in a heartbeat.
Tax rankings by themselves have little meaning. What matters is tax value. Are state and local governments effectively providing public services that are cost-prohibitive for most individuals to purchase on their own? And is Wisconsin upholding its moral responsibility to make sure the poor, sick and vulnerable aren’t doomed to destitution? Most state spending is covered by those categories, which is why even the fiercest of tax-cutters get lockjaw when asked to identify specific spending cuts, or even spending that shouldn’t rise to keep pace with inflation.
As the Tomah Journal interviews candidates for state Legislature this fall, we’ll present the following menu of potential spending cuts to each one. Should the state:.
Reduce funding for public schools?
Close some University of Wisconsin campuses?
Build fewer roads?
Abolish the state’s prescription drug program for the elderly poor?
Dump indigent nursing home residents from their beds?
Close some state parks?
Sell large tracts of state forests or public hunting grounds?
Make public employees pay 30 percent of their health insurance premiums?
Put public employees on 401(k) plans?
Abolish state ethanol subsidies?
Make the tourism industry pay its own promotion costs?
End subsidies for Wisconsin businesses that threaten to leave?
Just as politicians who advocate more spending have an obligation to identify which taxes they would raise, aggressive tax-cutters have an obligation to identify the spending they would cut. And if they can’t identify specific cuts, then it’s a concession that Wisconsin is making the right choices on taxes and spending.
.
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
Fred wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:18 AM:
Making public employees "pay" for certain things sounds good but is a bit miss leading. It typically can not be required since most public employees have bargained for certain benefits in their employment contracts. In most cases they have certain benefits because they have taken lower take home pay. Also, employee wages/benefits are a very small portion of the state budget. Entitlement programs and aid to local governments makes up the bulk of expenditures.
So you are back to, "What program do you want to eliminate?" and when that is answered the positions associated with those programs can be eliminated and the expenditures to those contracted to carry out the program can be eliminated.
One thing government, and most people have never quite caught on to is that during a poor economy it is better for government to spend money to help employment and keep the economy going. And during good times it is better to scale back government spending to keep inflation in check. But since we are always ready for a hand out and elected officials like to make their constituents happy, government nevers slows spending during the good times........... "