From the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance.
MADISON—With tax season fresh in mind, many residents know that Wisconsin’s individual income tax ranks relatively high among the states, 12th highest according to available federal figures. What is not well known is that rank varies depending on taxpayer income from as high as 10th to as low as 32nd. A new analysis from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX) shows that middle-income filers with taxable incomes between $50,000 and $150,000 are particularly affected.
For a hypothetical married couple in that range, income taxes rise surprisingly quickly as income increases. Drawing in part on calculations from the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, WISTAX found that:
– At $20,000, a typical couple owes -$591; that is, no tax is owed and a refund of $591 is received. That is 51% below the national average (-$391), and places the state 32nd among the 41 states with income taxes. At $35,000, the Wisconsin burden (+$125) is 65% below the US average (+$353) and ranks 25th.
– At $50,000, the typical Badger State bill is $1,383, 19th highest and on par with the US norm ($1,358).
– Over the next $100,000 of taxable income, however, state income taxes here jump quickly compared to the average. At $75,000, a Wisconsin bill averages $2,811, 13th highest and 16.4% above the US mean ($2,415). At $100,000 of income—appropriate for spouses each with $50,000 of taxable income—the state burden is again 16.4% above average ($4,297 vs. $3,693) and ranks even higher (10th). Finally, at the $150,000 level, the average Wisconsin tax ($7,069) ranks 13th, 13.7% above average ($6,217). At higher income levels, burdens were 7.8% to 15.4% above average, with ranks in the 13th to 18th range.
Why are income taxes relatively high on middle-income filers? One reason is that they are the state’s main revenue source : “With only 10% to 15% of income either under $40,000 or above $500,000, the state turns to those between $40,000 and $150,000—where over half of income to tax is found,” notes WISTAX President Todd A. Berry.
Wisconsin has too much government and antiquated laws.
It would help taxpayers is minimum markup and prevailing wage were gone.
Ditching the town, village, city, county system wouldn’t break my heart either. Why we need 72 county governments, 190 city governments, nearly 500 village governments and over 1,200 town governments is something I have never understood.
While we are at it, term limits for politician and judges would not break my heart.
bill:
I agree with the term limit idea. Eight years and out for state officials would be great. Something similar for the feds.
I’m curious about your elimination of local government. Please expand on that idea and how you would accomplish that goal. And explain who plows the snow, fills the potholes, or runs the parks, fire and rescue, etc.. I am truly curious as I am on both the Town and County board up here, and have been discussing the potential for eliminating the Town layer of government with others of like mind. .
> I am truly curious as I am on both the Town and County board up here, and have been discussing the potential for eliminating the Town layer of government with others of like mind.
No you’re not, and no you haven’t. You have been proven to be an Internet troll time and time again. You haven’t substantiated a single one of your claims, ever.
j:
Sorry, but once again you are wrong. I was sworn in last night as Town Chairman. You are just jealous, and you are too cowardly to run for public office.
Mr. Nord – it would be nice if I had the ability to explain in a couple of sentences a solution to the complex situation of downsizing government. The current fad of shared services between agencies amply demonstrates that there is a lot of fat to trim in government.
I would note two things. First, you are in favor of term limits on the state and feds but conveniently omitted county and local governments which you have stated you are in positions in both. My experience as an elected official is these two levels are some of the worst offenders of a closed system.
Secondly, both the local town/villages/cities and the county “plows the snow, fills the potholes, or runs the parks, fire and rescue, etc.” is a prime example of redundancy. My experience as an elected official is this extra layer of bureaucracy does not deliver value to taxpayers.
In closing, the name calling “You are just jealous, and you are too cowardly to run for public office” is a prime reason for Mr. Jason classifying you as a troll unwilling to accept other opinions other than your own. Sorry.
Bill:
I’m all in for term limits at all levels of government. Sorry I didn’t include that in my first post. The fly in the ointment may be the lack of folks interested in running for local office. But maybe things would change with the enactment of term limits. Guess there is only one way to find out.
Those folks don’t plow the snow.. etc on the same roads. I would be in favor of the county handling road maintenance on town roads, but that is a tough sell in some places. And it creates bigger county government. In our county the highway dept is in the “sweet spot” right now as far as contracting out to townships for plowing. If they take on anymore town work they have to add staff, and there may not be enough summer work to keep them busy, so that creates another set of problems. I’m all ears if you have some workable suggestions.
“The current fad of shared services between agencies amply demonstrates that there is a lot of fat to trim in government”. I’m not sure where you are going with that comment, as the current administration in Madison has limited the ability of counties to share staff and equipment, and to do work in-house rather that bid out the work to the private sector. I think it was Act 55 that made those changes, but if you are really interested I can get you the reference.
Jason is a serial name caller and proficient user of profanity. You probably have never been the target of his wrath as you seem to be of similar philosophic positions. Until you are his target you really have no dog in the fight.
I am willing to listen to any suggestions to the problem of redundant local services. My experience is that none of my town constituents were interested in eliminating the town level of government. Maybe you have had a different experience. I’m all ears.
Mr Jason
To address your thought of eliminating a layer of government. From my personal experiences, there is an inherit problem.
When the 2010 census forced County redistricting, Planning and Parks was tasked with drafting a plan. They did a fine job dividing the County up by both population and geographic boundaries. The plan was summarily rejected when it was noted that 4 of the 30 Supervisors were in the same District. Heaven forbid, County government would cease to function if even one of these great public servants was lost.
This was the time when I suggest downsizing the Board from 30 to 15 Supervisors. The response was how could anyone suggest “we” are superfluous. The reaction to the idea of term limits was equally as well received.
I see this narcissistic mindset as the largest impediment to reducing the size of government. Replacing these “people” is a difficult task as anyone brave enough to stick their neck out to run for office soon finds out about the political version of ‘whack-a-mole.’ Term limits would help but politicians scream bloody murder at the mere suggestion of being forced out of their positions of power.
bill:
We, too, had several incumbents running for the same seat after the 2010 redistricting. Since the entire board felt that the new redistricting plan was the best solution, it remained and the incumbents ran against each other. Such is life in the political world.
I am mixed regarding decreasing the size of county boards. While it may sound like a good idea on the surface, often it doesn’t turn out that way in the long run. A neighboring county went from27 to 15, and it was a disaster. Now they are going up to 21. The smaller board turned those remaining members into ad hoc full time employees.
Mr. Nord: Sorry, but no sale. Heard the same crap before but as soon as we started a ballot initiative things changed.
bill:
I didn’t realize I was selling you anything. I thought I was asking for reasonable solutions to your suggestion to get rid of town, village, city and county government. So far you haven’t come up with a single idea. Guess the well is dry.
Mr. Nord – sorry, but if you cannot read “I see this narcissistic mindset as the largest impediment to reducing the size of government. Replacing these “people” is a difficult task as anyone brave enough to stick their neck out to run for office soon finds out about the political version of ‘whack-a-mole.’ Term limits would help but politicians scream bloody murder at the mere suggestion of being forced out of their positions of power” I have to side with Jason on this one. Why don’t you troll someplace else and find people stupid enough to allow you to warp the conversation to suit your own views?
bill:
So you are just another complainer rather than a doer. If your opinion is in the minority you just blame all the others with a different opinion. A sad state of local government in your neck of the woods.
No. What is sad is a White Nationalist troll in any sort of elected office.
p:
Once again you are wrong on all counts.
Paul
I did not know our troll was a white nationalist.
b:
I’m no troll, nor am I a white nationalist. That’s all a figment of Paul’s imagination.
Le Roi du Nord = King of the North
A well known moniker of many white nationalists.