Today's programming is made possible in part by The Advocates of Minnesota Public Radio contributors include the McKnight Foundation working to strengthen families and communities and Kare 11 news the news Handle With Care. It is now six minutes past 11. Good morning. This is midday from Minnesota Public Radio. Gary ican is away this week. I'm. Fedele. Thanks for joining us on this Wednesday the 15th of July 1998 according to an analysis by the children's defense fund of Minnesota. There are significant shortfalls in the ability of federal and state tax policies to meet the needs of today's families. The study by the Children's Advocacy group also concludes that state policymakers have failed to take advantage of Minnesota's budget surpluses to begin to address these shortcomings the report recommends that when addressing family tax policy be the first priority in the next legislative session when it comes to tapping and something called the tax reform and reduction account. It was established by state lawmakers this past session. The report goes into detail about several problems, the children's defense fund identifies with both the federal and state tax code and their effect on families and offers recommendations for improvement will spend the rest of This hour discussing those findings with the maybe more overriding question, and that should both the federal and state government tax policies be geared to giving people in certain circumstances benefits. Where should they move more toward say a flat text a policy where everyone is treated equally joining us today to discuss. The report is Jim Coppell. He is executive director of the children's defense fund. Also here is Lynn read research director for the Minnesota taxpayers Association. That's a group that does its own analysis of the effect of taxes on family gentleman. Welcome to mid-day. Thank you. Thank you. We want invite to listeners to join the conversation a couple of phone numbers to pass along with your questions and comments via Twin Cities number is 227-6002 276 thousand the number to call if you live in the Twin Cities, if you're outside the metro area, the toll free number is one 802-4228 281 800-242-2828 Dimension. We will dissect some of the details of the report but we should begin with a brief, basically from you Mr. Couple since you're the executive director of the organization who put together this report. Could you basically out like for us the the premise of your study sure it even goes back Beyond tax policy with what the title of the old of the report is re-establishing the value of families and it's a guide for Public Policy in in the reason we titled at that is we feel that families today are giving increasing responsibility for the outcome with their children. We we have seen an increase in juvenile crime and increase in high school dropout rates. I increase in child abuse and neglect increase in and child poverty. And we look to families are we look a lot of places but we look primarily to families to solve or orbi the core of that solution and yet and so many of our public policies we don't support Play something to get the other message. And in this case of tax policy that other things are more are a better investment than the family is and over the last 50 years families have suffered dramatically in tax policy in this country and also in this state and so we we are beginning to point out just how families are treated in the public policy Arena and that impact in the message that they get infected to report you indicate that since World War II has been a relative shift in the tax burden from individuals and families without children the families with children. First of all, how sewing and what do you mean by relative is relative, but the burden type it shouldn't be necessary that the burden has shifted what has happened is As from the from the mid forties through today, we have seen taxes compared to income go up at a much greater rate for families with children as opposed to families without children or single individuals. So if you were paying a 1960 12% of your income to the government for taxes and your single person are or a family without children today, you would be paying about 12% So in other words for the word group of people it stayed about the same the percentage of stayed the same for a family with two children up in 1960 through today their tax rates gone up 43% And if they had four children, their tax rate would have gone up 243% over this time. So what has happened is NASA taxes have increased they have always been in the area of families with children. That's where the burden has shifted increasingly today. Group in the end the causes are multiple. Mainly we have had policies that while they were at when they were established met the needs of families with decades without increases and as decades go by and inflation each year adds up the value of those deductions and exemptions to families kid go down each year percentages by percentages so that they're worth just a fraction of what they were when they were passed. Mr. Rita of the taxpayers association. I mentioned you do your own analysis of these type of things does does that information square with what which refining has there been a significant shift from families without children to those with children in the first tax policies concerning definitely it's it's surprising for most people to look back and see a table of what exemptions were worth versus what income was Years ago and World War II and even before but the almost all of an average family income was exempt given the value of the exemptions then versus the average income then compared to now and it is pretty shocking to realize that well up into the sixties and I was relating this to Jim earlier. I when I applied for financial aid in college, I was shocked to find out how little my dad make and made at the time but just figuring from what I remember even in in the late sixties over half of my father's income was exempt from Taxation and that certainly isn't the case anymore for a family of four six. Why does it why has it been the shift from the families without children of those with children are our perspective would probably be because they need the money. Spending drives taxes and when you exempt of a large segment of the population from taxes voting population are not those citizens are not likely to to spend a great deal of time concerning themselves with how the money is spent because they're not having to contribute a great deal of it. They don't feel like and in that kind of a quiet way spending gross to the point that there begins to be a need for Revenue. And though in rather than looking at the spending and saying are we spending everything we need to spend all of this there begin to be searches for revenue is income increased. It was easy to leave the exemption amounts the same. And let the money the tax money automatically increase so you don't you don't says there's been some philosophical change families with children versus without children. I mean, I don't think if there's a deliberate attempt to minimize the value of families with children are children themselves. I think it was just it's a search for revenue and it's a very easy thing in the late seventies in Minnesota before we had indexing double-digit inflation and a good fourteen or fifteen income tax brackets some as narrow as five or six hundred dollars if you got a 12:10 or 12% raise in those years, which was possible because inflation was there you would be kicked up 3 4 5 income tax brackets heavy paying a much higher rate. The legislature would have done nothing. The money was pouring in and so that was an issue for indexing. That's one example, they recognized it they adjusted it but the incomes of continue to rise the inflation adjustments have not kept pace. And again, the spending is driving at when you look at the budget say how much money do we need to continue everything we're doing well, we can adjust those brackets all the way or we can adjust that exemption enough and let the money flow in men is driving at or do you think there's been some philosophical change over the years? Well, I I don't think there's been a philosophical change. I don't think that there's been a deliberate attempt at attempt is Lynn said where I would probably disagree little with with what he said is, you know, there is spending a nurse taxing. Are you taxed what you need to spend and if spending goes up taxes go up that's well-known and spending goes down. My taxes goes down but tax policy is in isolation. In other words. If you need to raise a million dollars and you can attack people to do that. How do you propose to do that? And what has happened is this we've gone from Raising that $1000000 to say 2 million dollars. We have put shifted all of that increase on to families with children so that they're they're paying a disproportionate amount of the taxes as our taxes have gone up over the years. Whether or not we taxed too much or spend too much or or cut spending the fact is to the tax policy today is very unfriendly to families with children. And that's what this report is targeted toward. That's the statement we want to make end up in the principal reason is is that there is so much discussion of of all kinds of tax cuts today and none of them are addressing this issue. None of them are talking about the fact that families with children are getting a raw deal and have been for many decades. I when it comes to our nation's tax policy and because Minnesota's tax policies is driven so much by the federal it's here as well. So it's a combination both at the state and federal level that families are shortchanged. We're talking today about the effect of tax policy of both federal and state tax policies on families are guests are Jim couple executive director of the children's defense fund, but she should report on this subject. Also joining us today as Lynn read his research director for the Minnesota taxpayers Association. If you'd like to call us with your questions or comments about the subject. Feel free to give us a call. The Twin Cities number is 227-6002 276 thousand of side the metro area. The toll free number is one 800-242-2828 at the start. There were a lot of different things that you went into about this report. Today. We can delve into some of those specific Provisions one is that according to report most tax provisions and helping families with the cost a face raising children fall far short of actual a cost expenses. And are you talking about the dependent exemption? How could you explain their your position on that sure that the dependent exemption is what you fill out is part of your ear. Tax filing every year and in last year was $2,650 per exemption. In the give you a historical perspective in 1941 that exemption was 40% of the average per capita income. So if somebody made $10,000 that exemption would have been $4,000 now, they didn't make that much then but the fact is it was 40% as per capita income the average income gross today had that kept pace instead of it being $2,650. It would be $10,000 per exemption. And then we would be talking about the majority of income with for families with children not being attacked but haven't most exemptions. Of an adjusted with inflation. Well, yes, if you look at the ones that haven't they're almost all around families and children and if you look at child care credits or deductions that were passed Federal Way in 1981, there has been not one adjustment made over the last 17 years so that in 1981 the intent was that those would cover the cost of childcare and they did today they're less than half of the cost of to take care of a child. And if you have two or three children, there's no in some cases no adjustment for more than two children at all. So The those things that are passed when you're not talking about inflation adjustments, whether any of these issues they're going to lose tremendous amounts of their value every single year. And that's what the current in the outgrowth of all of that is that families have less after tax money to spend then they get real money. Then they did 20 years ago thirty years ago 40 years ago 10 years ago and while in the last in the mid-eighties to now we have made improvements there have been improvements. There's also been increases that it kind of offset them and they've kind of remained, you know about intact so it hasn't gotten any significantly worse over the last decade but it is so it was so bad and that in the decades before that that we haven't made up for it either. Maybe I'll ask you what kind of a philosophical question regarding this end. Should the government be concerned about? How close it comes to covering the actual costs the government? It is a philosophical question is what value do we place on the if you want to look at it that simply the service that parents provide in raising children tremendous value to that. It's been recognized throughout history. It's obvious that that is a very important. It's the most important unit in society. You can't have a stable government without stable families. They're raising a good citizen. And so there's a tremendous interest are the question then becomes what's the best way to do that and to encourage that I I can't at all this agree with you and I agree completely that the the tax burden Is much greater you can say what why is that? Well, the spending is much greater you go back to that their many government programs designed to benefit children and the benefit families are to pick up the pieces from families that are not doing so well and that it comes down to the question. What's the most efficient way is it to empower parents with their own money or is it they have a government program that then begins to look here and there for more more money to keep it going which may or may not be that effective and I think there seems to be a re-evaluation in the last 10 years that you know, perhaps these programs as well intended as they were are not as good as letting the families have the money in the first place in power and maybe just cutting the program so we don't need all this Revenue. I think if there is a philosophical issue of what is the government's role in helping the family and is in I think in this tax policy case we're talking about the same thing is empowering the family with her own money to your question or comment as well as a taxpayer. So I understand the issue of raising a family but I think the implication of these speakers is that families today are worse off because of tax policy then other taxpayers and I think that's a ridiculous position to take I think the fact of the matter is all incomes have increased the tax rates of have that in the single families out as being somehow missed this abused in this is I think I'm terribly a misleading the fact the matter is the marriage penalty I think is far more significant in that you're charging at the same income level significantly different tax rates whether you're with your married or not, so I had just told me we checked I think the premise of the speaker Are being singled out here for? Okay, and Jimmy we can let her know if you addressed it kind of like the question. I threw out of the beginning just kind of the overall little should do their be the text of reflective benefits for people in certain circumstances in life seems to be kind of saying that the shouldn't be well and I would just disagree entirely with this comment a I don't think we are saying that the tax revenues of Ghana people make more they get taxed the tax rates are higher and and people pay more in taxes. He's right that's true. Everybody does on the other hand as taxes have increased the public policy in the in the statistics are there to show this to the public policy has determined that families with children will pay more proportionately abet increase tax then others and significantly more. So the fact is that's true. Now should that be are obviously I'm children's defense fund. We are you know advocates for children and their family and absolutely a child is the best resource we have for our future and we say that everybody says that everybody I love children, but we don't necessarily practice at when it comes to our tax policy and the fact that the store one statistic out for you. We're going to have for every retiree 30 years from now for every retiree. We're going to have about 1/2 of the number of people working that are working today. So another words are Workforce is declining it's more and more important that we have successful adults 30 years from now out there in the marketplace succeeding and that's going to be depending on the success of families raising children, and if we can't give them the support and treat them at least equally and tax policy to Oz Then we're not going to get there and and yet our expectations are that somehow families are magically going to succeed against all these obstacles speaking specifically of children in your report. You say the tax Provisions don't adjust for family size that goes this is come up in the welfare debate a lot. What do watch explain their do do you think the death there should be more money for each child in a family. Is that what you're saying what I'm saying? Is that as if a family has two children in childcare And they have an account with your employer where they're able to put away pre-tax dollars and draw that down that that account is $5,000. That's the maximum allowable and that account that was established in 1981. If you have two children in childcare, I had two children a childcare 6 years ago. It was the end of that at that time. I had them in a home-based child-care. Very modest. Very good price. I thought I was paying about $11,000 a year for childcare. The most I could deduct from that was $5,000. Now today I would imagine that that's much higher amount that the cost of childcare. However again that $5,000 has remained flat. So if you have more than one child, you're penalized. If you have more than two child children, your further penalized all the tax credits for childcare at the state and federal level are limited to one or two the education credits that we establish last year. 822 if you have three children in your family that their child is invisible when it comes to deduct to these deductions or credits and we're saying that yeah that you know, if you're raising three children then thin great, let's see why why is that their child less valuable than the first to all the studies show that family spend the same amount of money when they have more than one child doesn't necessarily mean that that that third child is in a tenth of the cost. They're the same there at the average cost of a child is about the same regardless of numbers and until we need to treat it that way in the tax code. Then you have some thoughts on that at all or but the family size and what all does she make a difference? Sure. I I I go back to the overall picture of I was asked one time to come up with what percent of income was paid in taxes and the turn of the century the best I could get cuz Dad is pretty sketchy is about 4 for the stay. 4% or something like that, and now if you take and I didn't know I did I don't think I had numbers for federal but safe for to 10% for everything and now it's approaching 40% and that's of increased incomes, but it's still it's a huge portion of the month of a family's income. If they don't have available regardless of the size of the of the family and dad is being taken to provide services to that family of one kind or another and I think in regardless of your view about adjusting for family size or not. The question a deeper question has to be are the services that government is providing helping overall and Jen are they justifying a 40% Rate on these families are the families receiving so many benefits to to themselves and for society as a whole that it's a but much better way to do it to take that 40% and spend it elsewhere then to let them have it. I think that's a key philosophical question. They are Lynn Reed Minnesota taxpayers Association and Jim couple of the children's defense fund. Our next caller is Holy and Holly rather in Rosemont go at Holly. But he's paying their fair share that would mean eliminating. You don't marriage penalty. One of the things I do question about some of your statistics are where you at what level at where is the taxes coming from when you say that if family is paying more taxes spent a number of single people regarding credit only goes before childcare. Can we go to 422? Children. Well, if you want to have a bigger deduction, aren't you asking people who whose toes and to have a family of one or two because that's what their income can actually afford but I have to know subsidized somebody who wants to have three kids. And when you say is that third child any less valuable than I could say that you can say that for six seven eight children and we're Way Beyond having that many children and being able to afford them. What's wrong with you. Why can I expect the government to pay for the child care if it's my choice to work it seems so absurd. I mean if you want you go ahead and have the freedom to have all the children you want. You just have to pay for them and I'm all for the special programs. I'm up. I'm a liberal, but I'm also kind of a zero population. Hey, if you can't afford to have the kids don't be having them. Okay? Thanks. I appreciate it. Would you like to have you have addressed to some of the concerns add another caller? But do you want to add anything? I just want to re-emphasize that what we're talking about and which saying that families have expenses and and and we feel the tax policies. Don't mirror those expenses. We're looking at it from a historical View and saying that over the last half-century families expenses have gone up and the taxes have gone up and the help that those families received too straightforward help in terms of our tax policy and deductions and the value of them raising their families has gone down. So in other words, we we have family struggling today. Do the taxes at a greater level than we did 50 years ago or 40 years ago. And when I talk about the number of children, if somebody wants to have three children, they certainly have to help pay the cost of having 3 children. I when I talk about up a deduction of $5,000, you know, when you're in the 28% tax bracket you get 28% of $5,000. You don't get $5,000. So, you know, there was you not getting Child Care paid for your not getting these things. These aren't you something but this is a money coming into the individual. These aren't public programs. These are tax policies. And so it's a little bit different than how she described it in and yes, you know a predominantly today. We have families have to some 3 and then someone of course, but but even in that range, I'm just saying that those each of those children are an expense to the family and the Greater expense in there ever going to get credit for a tax policy. I mean that's dumb. That's part of Parental responsibilities family responsibilities. But at the same time if our tax policies don't continue to recognize the increasing cost of childcare just like we we continue to recognize increasing property tax cost for a commercial industrial property tax cost for other costs that we've addressed. If we don't address the families with children, it's just going to be more and more difficult and they will continue to pick up an increasing piece of the overall tax burden. You're listening to mid-day on Minnesota Public Radio on paraphernalia in today for Gary eichten, and we will continue our discussion with Jim couple of the children's defense fund and Lynn Reed of the Minnesota taxpayers Association in just a moment. This is Robert Siegel All Things Considered is more than a news program. We bring you stories about ideas about the Arts about interesting people and developments in our lives that haven't made headlines. At least not yet. We bring you the stories of commentators the insides of Scholars and the experiences of all sorts of Americans and we start with the day's news TuneIn later today to NPR's All Things Considered Listen for all things considered this afternoon at 3 right here on a Minnesota Public Radio and stay with us at noon today a live broadcast from the national Press Club of Hot Topic the year 2000 computer problem and live from the Press Club. Today u.s. Senator, Robert Bennett of Utah will talk about that issue. He has title his speech Paul Revere not Chicken Little sound the call on the year two-thousand. Listen for the speech from Senator Robert Bennett of Utah at noon today shortly after the news headlines in here on Minnesota Public Radio stretches for that quick check on the weather continues to be on the warm side. Although not quite as warm as the last couple of days. It's probably mostly sunny around the region today and there's a better chance for some thunderstorms ice today just middle seventies near Thief River Falls and the upper 80s in Rochester for the Twin Cities today partly cloudy slight chance of an afternoon thunderstorm a high of 85 clear tonight a little red around 60. Sunny tomorrow and a high of 82 and northwesterly winds. So look at the humidity will be leaving us for a while and Lewis 73 Saint Cloud 74 Rochester 69 Fargo-Moorhead 73 in Sioux Falls is 76 in the Twin Cities. It's mostly sunny and 75 degrees. It's not 24 minutes before 12 noon. This is midday coming to you on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm very finale and we are talking today with Jim Coppell the children's defense fund and Lynn Reed of the Minnesota taxpayers Association were talking about the effective tax policies on families, both federal and state tax policies. And if you'd like to join our conversation, feel free to call us at 227-6000 and the Twin Cities or one 802-422-8228 1 800-242-2828 is the toll free number. I asked you a gym by referring back to this report from the children's defense fund about the some some tape state tax policy. And what has to do with the property tax rebates that were handed out. And have been a lot of taxpayers have received and you estimate that less than one-fifth of that total amount has gone to middle and low-income families. So maybe you could comment on that and how do you define middle and low-income? Sure. Well that last part it's families earning less than $55,000 a year families with children earning less than $55,000 and the property tax rebates, you know in an isolation if we were going to lower property tax to a rebate that and that obviously has happened that's you know, a public policy decision. However, a lot of the discussion around that was to help Working Families. We're going to lower property tax in the reason we had rested in this report was to say if you want to help Working Families with tax policy property tax is not the best way to do it. I in fact 19% of a billion dollars got their families with children earning less than $55,000. That's so it might the point on that was to say if we're going to help families working families with children that there are far better ways to to direct our tax cuts or rebates then property taxes in Olinda. You've looked at that the issue pretty closely. It is a Hot Topic does the diseases that information square with what you have found regarding this property tax rebate and we haven't done that now so son on which families received it but it's a course that wasn't a hundred percent the purpose it was to rebate a property tax. And so you rebated according to who pay in the reason more of it didn't go to those families many of those families. Don't pay that much property tax. That's just the way it is. If you take up an average value home of in the state of 80,000 Statewide. I think it is well by myself my rebate was worth A hundred bucks or something so full from the taxpayers association perspective is that it means there a flaw in that didn't the way that was done or do you support that not giving you a jacket rebating property taxes? So to the extent that they were saying we want to Target relief to families with children than a property tax isn't the way to Target relief to families with children because families with children don't pay exorbitant amounts of property taxes in Minnesota contrary to what you might feel when you get your statement. It just isn't the case. So again, it's the objective as we understood it was to rebate property taxes. I didn't know that it was to provide relief to working families with children so much Ln Eden Prairie your question or comment I'm actually have a three-part question. The first one has to do with the marriage penalty. Obviously never once talked about that this morning and I want to know why anyone thinks it's a good idea and why it still around I think most people are upset about it. And I'm wondering if there's any it's the anyone that they're up there thinks it will go away. But also I wanted to talk about people with families are spending a lot more and it's come in compared to sort of by the fifties and do you think that if it was reduced or we got to figure tax breaks that the fear is that everyone would throw their kids to private schools in a public schools in that use public services or the reverse that they wouldn't set? They wouldn't do anything good with the money. They just buy television sets and now thank me after Affair. Great. Thanks so much for the call. Then why don't you tackle that won the marriage penalty that that debate goes back to things that I've been able to look up since I saw a reference in 1921. I'm debating that how to tax them. What's the tax unit that the individual or is it the family up to 1948? We tax the individual just straight-up whatever your income was your tax that way and the joint property States got to share that they got to split it. They got a court decision. So then there was this disparity on the federal side between joint property States and common-law state. So they enacted The Joint schedule recognizing that brought inequities into it. It's not as such a simple and straightforward just cuz when you adjust for a penalty, you can give a bonus it gets pretty complicated as to whether it goes away. It's probably getting big enough issue that something will be done about it because one of the tenants of a tax policy is a at least a perception of fairness and when something grows out of proportion, The public says hey something's got to be done. This isn't fair. And that's when something gets done. So it but it isn't as straightforward as it appears in the surface. Okay that Aaliyah I didn't I didn't see it. But obviously you would have some opinion on that. We didn't talk about it here because we were talking specifically to families with children. But yes, it is a problem. And yes, it's more complicated than how it appears. There are instances where when two individuals get married there better off. It isn't always a one-sided thing where I every time there's a marriage there's a penalty I in fact if and in correcting it some of those people who would be better off being married maybe worse off maybe it would work in reverse and we'd have a trade-off. So it's a comp like most of life. It's complicated the other part of her question. I thought it was interesting to when when you say if you give families more money and fame. Two children have more money would they spend it frivolously with a send their kids to private schools would they spend it responsibly and the answer to that would be? Yes, they would spend it the way that they stopped would get them the most value and much like they spend it now. However, they would have more to spend as a result of changes that we recommend it wouldn't be thousands of dollars more. It wouldn't change your life overnight, but it would be more money and it would be a symbol. I mean a lot of this is a saying that children are raising children has been undervalued due to this decrease in child in attack, you know, when the way we tax families with children, but the message is very important as well as the extra money. It is a tremendous service. It is a tremendous institution. It doesn't mean we need to subsidize it. Just means we need to treat it at least fairly. Alright Allen on the car phone. Go ahead. Inequity in the tax system of about children. I've been paying child support for almost a little over 10 years, but in all that time, I have never been allowed to make any deductions for either of my two children. I pay taxes on the full amount and the amount that goes to my ex-wife is tax-free to her. She gets all the deductions for the children. She gives all the tax credits the various the education credits. Even though I see my children seven days out of every 14 and I physically take care of them in my home or 1/3 of the year when it comes back time. I paid for both I get no deductions whatsoever. And then one third of my income goes to my ex-wife tax free. I wonder if they're you know, if that kind of a setup doesn't encourage. Deadbeat dad. I'll listen up here. Think when that when you really like to dive into just two poles the alternative to get say that that not to be cruel or anything but It shows the cost of of leaving as well. But you get into this discussion of incentives in the tax code's they aren't all deliberately designed summer there by accident some are deliberately designed but the main purpose of a tax system is to raise revenue and probably should be the main purpose and the trend has been towards getting away from a lot of special specialty kinds of Provisions to get people to do one thing or another and make it as simple and as Fair as possible to raise the revenue that government needs to race so that's all I'll say about that. Okay. I'll take a text or call Wayne Fargo. Yes. I noticed you were talking about that. You did research all way back to 1921 yet to Stage your Baseline for looking at the deduction for children is 1941. Call my history that was right at the start of World War II and I would assume that was government policy to encourage throughout the families looking at the possibility of needing to replenish. The ranks wounded after looking at what history happened to countries in Europe during World War 1. And now I would say we have shifted the policy where you sit a lot of credits in my trees out after two children. We recognize we don't live in their parents. I do need 46 Children of Peace and we have settled on a national policy about 2 children. Maybe this isn't argue, but I think that's what's happened. Alright, thank you Wayne. Jim would like to respond to that ladder part. It's right pretty much it is to child families predominate. It seems like that is where most families have settled on average all the statistics show that I don't think in 1941 I give and I can you can give government credit your criticism. I don't think they had the foresight to think about encouraging growth and families by increasing the the deduction be it just so happens if that that, you know, Dad don't that was the date we chose we could have taken 1948 1948 a family with two children paid no federal taxes. So there wasn't necessarily any difference family fortune pay no federal taxes. So you didn't need to have more than two if you're making the average income. So, you know, I don't think it was necessarily I had to do with war and and loss of life. I think it had to do with the fact that people felt it that the cost of children and importance of raising children and the importance of families and stable families. I was reflected strongly and the way we did our tax policy Jim couple of the children's defense fund and Lynn Reed of the Minnesota taxpayers Association, cuz you have a family guy. I just wanted to let you know you go back to the income tax federal actually came in in 1913. So that's the Baseline if you want to look at it and it affected just a few thousand there were 10 20,000 filers in the whole country again. I think the revenue needs drove a lot of this World War II had huge income tax needs. That's when withholding was enacted as a temporary quote emergency measure which we still have today. So there it has the exemptions were deliberately lured because there was a discussion to the thirties that you know government was going to take a much more Active role they were going to spend a lot more money where we going to get the money. We're going to lower the exemptions. The exemption in 1913 was $4,000 for a married couple have been almost nobody pay the income tax. It was designed to get it people who weren't paying much of any kind of tax other than some property. So the government's search for revenue and World War II was a huge one World War 1 was another one but much smaller caused the detect they deliberately lured the deductions then and it said to say and send it to have children and not their children. I don't think that's a key part of the tax code. Jim koplik you think the earned income tax credit program has been effective and do most people who are eligible for the program. Are they taking advantage of it? Yes, I think it's effective. And yes, I think in Minnesota, especially we have had a a good success in a large number estimated over 80% of potential eligible people have filed for and the working family tax credit. By the way is it is the state version of a federal tax program called the earned income tax credit and both of those programs are for lower-income households and individuals families with children without children it and single individuals all are eligible at different levels to file when they file for the taxes if they've learned of a lower income qualifies, they get back a portion or all of the taxes that they pay the previous year. You know, what average is out somewhere between 50 and $200. It's not again an extraordinary amount of money. It can be depending on a family circumstance, but the state pays about 25. Scent of what the federal government pays and it's program so you get a match and that since it's a fairly simple program pretty straightforward and it does put money in the pockets of lower-income families and has been tremendously successful in in complimenting low-wage families. Just a couple of minutes left. Let's get another phone call in now Charles from Hastings. Go ahead half and raised. Forever since I'm going way back to the fifties and sixties and that isn't true because I always made out of my own income tax and the exact dependent exemption was $600 all of the sixties in the seventies and it was the late seventies before it ever increase from the $600 might figure something in the statement that he made on the property tax refund. He says on the Navy $5,000 home is only averaged about $100 in that statement is incorrect to because my home is valued approximately eighty-five thousand. I got almost 300 between two and three hundred, but so I don't know if I should go back to school. Alright, thank you Charles Will Jim Allen sure like to respond to that. I'm getting credit for what I say and what I don't say, it's alright, that's that's great. I first first part the exemption when we talked about it. We said since 1941 you looked at it since 1941 that the exemption has gone up at a much lower rate than inflation. And it has resulted in it being a fraction of what it should be today had it followed either the growth in just income or inflation. So it wasn't that it never has changed since 1941. It just has he mentioned it states $600 for a long time. It stayed at $1,000 for quite a few years. It just move very very slowly to where it is today, but it is yes it it was increased. Hearing again, but lost vast majority of its value over that time because we're just a short amount of time last when I squeeze it one more call and then we go have to wind things up Bob and Plymouth. Go ahead. I have to comment first. I think one of the problems that our society is in today as we've come to believe that no matter what my problem is as an individual or as a family or some level of government taking some of it for me. Secondly. I think we had a scrap iron tires present income tax system and go to what I call a gross income tax if you graduated rate in a low-income to a high-income, but no itemized deductions. No personal exemption. Nothing just a place cleaners plain simple gross income tax and everything that you make so that does no reflection of personal decisions on how much tax you owe on your gross income. Alone is the from governments point of view is the instability 3 conomic Cycles. That's a problem now federally, but it's certainly an option to consider and people are talking about that at a time. I would appreciate your time coming in today, and we lots of colors. So again, thanks don't think you do Coppell executive director, the children's defense fund and also here today Lynn Reed research director for the Minnesota taxpayers Association. Award-winning National Public Radio diplomatic correspondent. Tom gjelten will be in the Twin Cities tomorrow evening for a lecture about current threats to World Peace. The event begins at 7 at the Macalester College Chapel in St. Paul. Sheldon has been with NPR for many years has a labor and education correspondent a foreign correspondent in Latin America and most recently in Eastern Europe where he covered the Bosnian conflict his lecture diplomacy Under Fire begins at 7 tomorrow evening tickets are free and available at the door. The time now is 5 minutes before 12 noon. Let's bring in Garrison Keillor and The Writer's Almanac