STATE OF MINNESOTA

Office of Governor Mark Dayton

130 State Capitol• 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd ♦ Saint Paul, MN 55155-1611

May 23, 2018

The Honorable Kurt Daudt

Speaker of the House
463 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Dear Speaker Daudt:

l have vetoed and am returning Chapter 205, House File 947, a bill related to
taxation and education.

Two weeks ago, I said that 1 would not begin to negotiate or sign a tax bill until
there was an agreement to fund Emergency School Aid. l urged the Legislature to fund
$137.9 million in one-time Emergency School Aid to ensure that our schools could
continue to provide the high quality educations students need and deserve. To date, at
least 59 school districts across Minnesota are facing severe financial shortfalls, which
will force the layoffs of hundreds of teachers and support staff, increases in class sizes
and cuts to school programs. Thirty-three of the schools districts are in Greater Minnesota
and twenty-six are in the metropolitan area.

Republicans misleadingly claim to provide $225 million in this bill for schools,
but 80% of the funding is from existing sources that have already been allocated and
budgeted for staff training and community education. The other $50 million is from the
State's budget reserve. Instead of providing critical new funding, this bill simply shifts
funding by allowing school districts to transfer money out of community education and
professional development programs. Community education funding is crucial to meet the
needs of our most at-risk preschoolers, ECFE parents and adults seeking a GED.
Professional development for our teachers is critical when we need to train our teachers
in school safety. With a $329 million budget surplus, it makes no sense for us to take
funding away from our schools and teachers. This funding is not only inadequate, it
completely misses the mark on school funding priorities our teachers and students sorely
need.

Voice: (651) 201-3400 or (800) 657-3717 Fax: (651) _797-1850 MN Relay (800) 627-3529
Website: http://rnn.gov/governor/ An Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on recycled paper containing 15% post consumer material and state government printed
The Honorable Kmt Daudt
May 23, 2018
Page 2

Misguided Tax Priorities

Late last year, President Trump and Republicans in Congress enacted a federal tax
law that overwhelmingly favored large corporations and the richest Americans. The
federal tax law cut taxes by 40 percent for corporations, totaling 92 percent of the net
total, or $1.35 trillion. In response to the federal tax changes, I proposed a near revenue­
neutral tax bill on March 16th that would separate state income taxes from the federal tax
code and cut income taxes for over 2 million Minnesota families. Unfo1tunately, like the
federal tax bill, this bill prioritizes corporations and wealthy individuals over Minnesota
families.

While there are items in the bill that align with my approach, there are significant
proposals left out of the bill that would help Minnesota families. My approach would
have helped low and middle-income families with the expansion of the Working Family
Credit to larger families, saving 329,000 Minnesotans an average tax reduction of $160. I
proposed a new Personal and Dependent Credit of $60 per person tax credit for
individuals earning less than $90,000 and manied tax filers earning less than $180,000
per year. For a family of four that is a tax credit of $240. About 2 million Minnesotans
would have received an average tax cut of $115.

Individual Rate Cuts

The bill provides little in tax reductions to low-and middle-income families and instead
prioritizes rate cuts that benefit wealthy Minnesotans the most. One in five Minnesota
households do not have enough taxable income to benefit from the bill's rate reductions.

Under this bill, when compating the tax impact of the rate cut for a maniedjoint filer
with two children:
• Earning $30,000 or less would see no tax reduction
• Earning $65,000 (state median income) would see a $92 tax reduction
• Earning $150,000 would see a $262 tax reduction
• Earning $250,000 would see a $263 tax reduction

Under my tax bill, when compaiing the tax impact of the new personal and dependent
credit a maniedjoint filer with two children:
• Earning $30,000 or less would see $240 tax reduction
• Earning $65,000 (state median income) would see a $240 tax reduction
• Earning $150,000 would see a $240 tax reduction
• Earning $250,000 would see a $72 tax reduction

Corporate Rate Cuts

The bill provides a larger rate cut for corporations than for working Minnesota
families. Although the conference agreement changes income tax rates for both
individuals and corporations, for individuals, the bill provides a 0.2 percent second tier
The Honorable Kutt Daudt
May 23, 2018
Page 3

rate cut for taxpayers, but a 0.7 percent rate cut for corporations. That means the cut in
rate for corporations (7.6 percent) is over double that for the second tier rate (2.9
percent).

For businesses, this bill provides a corporate tax rate cut of 0.7 percent costing
$85 million per year when fully phased in, repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax
costing $23 million, and provides full Section 179 expensing with a first full year of $85
million. All this on top of the 40 percent tax rate cut corporations already received on
their federal taxes.

International Provisions

This bill shields multi-national corporations with foreign subsidiaries from $200
million in state taxes on the profits they have sheltered overseas. It provides a 100 percent
subtraction for Global Intangible Low Tax Income (GILTI) of individuals and
corporations. It also decouples 100 percent from Foreign De1ived Intangible Income
deductions for both individuals and corporations. These were tax changes made at the
federal level that Minnesota should follow.

And although the bill would bring to Minnesota some of its sh&re of deemed
repatriation income, it first allows the federal preferred rate deduction and the Minnesota
Dividend Received Deduction (DRD). My approach -following established Minnesota
policy - allows the DRD, but not the federal preferred rate deduction. Allowing
corporations to claim both of these preferential treatments for this income reduces the
revenue appo1tioned to Minnesota even fmther.

Fiscal Responsibility

This tax bill also seriously jeopardizes Minnesota's future fiscal stability. The rate
cuts in the bill are phased-in to hide their full costs. The personal income rate cuts cost
$136 million in FY 18-19, but the full cost will be $395 million a biennium. The
corporate rate cut costs $23 million in FY 18-19, but the full cost will b,e $170 million.
These future revenue losses are in addition to the average $200 million per biennium that
will be lost from freezing business prope1iy taxes last year. I will not sacrifice our state's
hard-earned fiscal stability, as this bill does.

I have been very clear about my commitment to fiscal sustainability for the State
of Minnesota. As I expressed in a letter to legislative leaders on April 9, the long-tern1
fiscal stability of the state is my highest priority. I have worked over the past seven years
to restore the state's fiscal stability and I will not suppo11 any bill that threatens that
stability. That is why I believed we should have revisited the three items in last year's tax
bill, the State General Levy Inflator, Cigarette Inflator and Premium Cigars, and Estate
Tax freeze at 2.4M to promote fairness, public health, and fiscal stability

The long-term costs of the rate cuts should be considered with the revenue
sources in the bill. The deemed repatriation revenue will end after 8 years. The change to
The Honorable Kurt Daudt
May 23, 2018
Page 4

the histo1ic tax credit is a shift that b1ings in more revenue temporarily and is not ongoing
revenue. The conforming to the disallowance of certain active pass through losses expires
at the federal level after 2025. Combined, these three provisions in the bill raise $128.9
million in FY 18-19 and $204.4 million in FY 20-21. Tempora1y revel}ue should not be
used to fund permanent tax cuts.

Other Issues in the Tax Bill

This bill moves the indexing of brackets, and vmious tax attributes, to chained
CPL This will mean that brackets will increase more slowly, increasing taxes on
individuals slightly more each year. In addition, because the other credits will increase
more slowly, their tax credits, propetiy tax refunds, and other benefits will be less
beneficial over time, which amounts to another tax increase. The net effect of this change
is a $60 million tax increase in the next biennium compared to what Minnesotans would
pay under our current inflation rules.

The bill requires an addition for distributions from a 529 savings account if the
distribution is used for K-12 expenses. Under the bill, those distributions are not subject
to the 529 credit or subtraction recapture tax.

I am concerned that the bill would take the stillbirth credit away from families
who would be eligible under current law, specifically families that use a surrogate. This is
an unfair and inequitable treatment of those families.

There are also some items that are not in this bill that I thought represented a
growing consensus. I heard from Rep. McDonald, non-profits, faith communities,
community centers, and others about a provision in the federal tax law that taxes
nonprofit employee transportation fringe benefits. This will impose taxes on non-profits
that they previously did not pay. In addition to new taxes, it would impose new
administrative burdens on the non-profit sector. It is an unfair result of the federal tax law
that Minnesota should not make part of its tax code.

This bill includes a provision restricting the ability of local units of government to
impose taxes and fees on food and food containers. As I made clear last year, I am
concerned about state legislation that pre-empts the decisions of local governments.

There are a number of tax provisions that I suppo1ted that are not included in the bill
including:

• the riparian buffer credit paid for from the general fund;
• the harvest credit that will provide an incentive to harvest more timber on p1ivate
lands;
• the Mille Lacs prope1ty tax abatement to help small business owners impacted by
a temporary downturn;
• the Upper Harbor TIF provisions in Minneapolis, and
• the Duluth Local Sales Tax
The Honorable Kmt Daudt
May 23, 2018
Page 5

Missed opportunity to compromise

Despite all of these concerns, I still believed that we could have reached an
agreement on this vitally impmtant issue for Minnesotans. In an effort to find common
ground, I proposed a middle-path approach on May 19th that incorporated elements of my
proposal along with the legislature's largest tax priorities. The Legislature never
responded to this offer. You did not come back with an alternative proposal. You did not
even explain what you objected to in this compromise.

I am vetoing this bill because of its misguided priorities that give tax cuts to

ZP1�"{]t_
corporations and the wealthy over the education of our children.

Mark Dayton '

Governor

cc: Senator Michelle L. Fischbach, President of the Senate

Senator Paul E. Gazelka, Senate Majority Leader
Senator Thomas M. Bakk, Senate Minority Leader
Senator Nelson, Chief Senate Author
Representative Melissa Hortman, House Minority Leader
Representative Loon, Chief House Author
The Honorable Steve Simon, Secretaiy of State
Mr. Cal R. Ludeman, Secretary of the Senate
Mr. Patrick Murphy, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives
Mr. Paul Marinac, Revisor of Statutes