Barry Clegg writes: > Tim Bonham's post is thought provoking. I've heard many say that 2/3 of > the state's revenue comes from the metro but only 1/3 is reinvested > there - but that's so often stated with so little backup that it's > almost urban legend. > > Does anyone have the real numbers? What percentage of state revenue, > the total pot, comes from Minneapolis, and/or the metro area, and how > much is spent there? I'm looking for solid numbers if you have them. > Thanks.
The subject has come up on the forum before, so hopefully those with Keith Reitman-like archival skills can dig up info from those... It's a couple of years old now, but the SW Journal article gets at some of the figures: http://www.swjournal.com/articles/2003/04/17/news/export5777.txt Pertinent parts: Of every tax dollar collected by the state, roughly 80 cents is returned to communities and individuals as aid and grants. The remaining 20 cents pays for state-funded parks, highways, colleges, prisons and state government. Tax revenues are redistributed throughout the state through a complex system of formulas based on need and other factors. Some areas receive less than their citizens pay in; other areas receive more. Minneapolis gets back 95 cents of every dollar it gives the state. However, Hennepin, Dakota and Washington counties receive less than 60 cents back -- in other words, these largely suburban counties are the state's biggest cash cows. Rural western and northern Minnesota counties generally receive more than they pay in. <end excerpt> ...the last time this came up, I have a very good and respectful offlist conversation with a suburban government-watcher who noted that while Minneapolis in effects kicks in 5 cents to the state it doesn't get back directly, the average take the state needs to keep going is 20 cents on the dollar (the converse of the 80-cents figure in the above excerpt). Thus, Minneapolis is "paying" 15 cents less than it should toward state government operations. There is no doubt that right now, the wealthier 'burbs are the big subsidizers of operating costs - and rural Minnesota is the big "subsidizee." Minneapolis isn't on the extremes. I think Tim's point might be that there are legacy investments city folks made that have reduced the cost of suburban expansion. Not sure exactly how to calculate that. Also, philosophically, there's the idea that the city absorbs costs the metro should share more equally (for example, some health, housing and public safety costs for lower-income Minnesotans.) David Brauer Kingfield Editor, SW Journal & Skyway News REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
