The short-term repercussions of a Minnesota-Wisconsin tax reciprocity agreement terminated by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty last September was a benefit to state coffers, but there is enough of a groundswell to re-start negotiations that serious discussions are about to resume.
A new agreement would benefit many Minnesota taxpayers — saving them some money and eliminating the headaches associated with filing two state income tax returns.
Here’s an idea that, if all goes well, will strike a blow for individual taxpayers. It’s also an example of legislators in both states putting their constituents first.
The tax reciprocity agreement had been in place for 40 years, and it operated under the simple premise that residents who live in one state and work in another deserve relief from having to file returns in both states. So lawmakers from both states collaborated on a plan that let their residents file single returns, with Wisconsin (because more than twice as many Wisconsin workers crossed the border for work) reimbursing Minnesota for the tax money it collected from Minnesota workers.
This year, there was a problem. Minnesota officials believed Wisconsin was too slow to make the payments. Pawlenty, needing all the cash he could get to help balance the state’s books, asked Wisconsin to speed up delivery. But negotiations broke down, and the agreement was scrapped.
Fortunately, there are enough people in both states who believe a new reciprocity agreement can be hammered out. A new deal will certainly benefit a good many taxpayers. An estimated 33,500 Wisconsin workers and 13,000 from Minnesota are affected, and at least 8,000 Minnesotans would have to pay an average of $300 in additional taxes to Wisconsin (Wisconsin has a higher individual tax burden than Minnesota) with no agreement in place.
Minnesota’s new revenue forecast was rolled out on Wednesday, and the adjusted numbers will aid both states in reciprocity negotiations. For the moment, it’s encouraging that leaders on both sides are seeking closure on this issue in a spirit of good will. The two states still don’t agree on the comparable merits of the Packers and the Vikings, of course, but taxpayers will accept cooperation wherever they can get it.
Editorials
Our View: Tax reciprocity talks encouraging
- Editorials
-
-
Our View: Interlock system for DWI works
It’s no stretch of the imagination to argue a new law governing drunk driving in Minnesota is likely having a significant impact on public safety.
-
Editorial: Teachers: experience is not everything (Poll)
Why it matters: Teacher seniority protection not the best way to ensure the most qualified teachers are in the classroom.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Feb. 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Our View: A new take on mentoring
Why it matters
Success of youth depends on the number of healthy relationships they have during their years of development. -
Spear: Does anchor’s DWI warrant all the coverage?
Covering DWI of a "public figure" leaves room for doubt, debate
-
Our View: Amend politics, not the Constitution
Why it matters
Many constitutional amendments are pseudo “people power” that weaken real democracy. -
Our View: Acrimony fractures bipartisan spirit
Thumbs down: To state leaders … again.
-
Latest editorial cartoons Jan-Feb. 2012
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
-
Our View: Health cost a bigger issue than charity care
The cost of “uncompensated care” provided by Minnesota hospitals rose 27 percent in 2010, according to the Minnesota Hospital Association, with not-for-profit hospitals providing $226 million in charity care and $498 million in costs not covered by Medicaid reimbursements.
-
Latest editorial cartoons
A sampling of editorial cartoons from around the U.S.A.
- More Editorials Headlines
-





