North Dakota Could See One Of The Biggest “Fiscal Cliff” Tax Increases


The tax increase that could result as a result of “fiscal cliff” negotiations have been talked about as though they’d impact only a small number of very rich Americans. Whether we’re talking about the broad category of the Bush tax cuts, or capital gains taxes specifically, Americans are being sold on the idea that tax increases would most impact someone else.

That’s not true according to a report from the Tax Foundation. The tax increases that would result from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the Alternative Minimum Tax would be broad and dramatic.

In fact, North Dakota would be one of the states hit the hardest by the tax increases, with a nearly $5,000 median increase in federal tax burdens:

The “divide and conquer” strategy has worked well for the tax hikers. Americans don’t mind the idea of higher taxes, as long as we’re talking about higher taxes for someone else.

But the truth is that the “fiscal cliff” means significantly higher taxes for all of us.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • sbark

    the tax increases in the “fiscal cliff” talks are real………..the spending cuts by both the GOP and the Left are bogus. Politicians are once again set to get tax increases without any spending cuts…..
    With baseline budgeting, even the spending cuts are just slowdown in the growth of govt spending…….
    Would this be a good point for Boehnor to push to abolish baseline budgeting with a move toward zero based budgets………every item has to be justified every year

    • Tim Heise

      we need to get rid of Boehnor!

  • geoff

    Let it all go down. The quicker the house of cards comes crumbling down the sooner we can get our country back

    • sbark

      In a way yes……its the onlyPolitcially realistic way to address the untouchable mandated spending which eats up 100% of Fed Treas. Inflows…….without addressing that turning the economic path is unacheivable.

      • geoff

        It’s just so ludicrous to keep fighting back and forth, increasing the debt ceiling, pushing everything back and waiting for the next election. It reminds me of an old quote “tomorrow you tell yourself will be different, yet, too often tomorrow is a repitition of today”. I think the house republicans should allow the dems to put forward a plan, then all go in and vote not present. Then it is all on the dems when it cripples the middle class and the less fortunate. The rich will hold on to their money, not invest for the next four years, the economy will falter and our government will inevitably run out of revenues and Santa Clause will not be able to fund anything. End game…… Rebuild….. Prosperity will follow….

        If I’m wrong, the dems will have the solution and we all prosper and the rich will move out of country. Either way America moves one direction or another and the stale mate has been solved

    • Anonymous

      Yeah- W. got so close to brining the house down, but that damn Obama had to save the whole thing.

      • RCND

        If this is what being saved looks like then I guess Ill take the supposedly bad alternative

      • Rob

        In what way have we been saved?

        Bush was terrible on spending, but Obama is worse.

  • Edd

    I just read an interesting “Think piece” about whether we need income taxes at all. With Timmy Geithner clamming the national debt does not matter, then why not just borrow the money and let the public keep their own money. I think it would lead to a disaster, but it shows the fallacy of the Federal Government monetary policy.


    Elections have consequences. Even though Obama’s tax increase (80 to 160 Billion) does nothing to fix the fiscal crisis, the House should go along with the increase on the wealthy, since most rich people voted for Obama anyway. Don’t let Obama and msm have an excuse to blame R’s. But then the House R’s should demand sufficient spending cuts to balance the budget and quit raising the debt limit. Stop putting more debt on my children. Will this happen? Of course not, as the House R’s like spending too.

  • Don Quixote

    Just remember that no one was twisting the arm of the House of Representatives when the law was voted in. It was a compromise brought about because the House was holding back legislation for extending the debt ceiling. Conservative republicans were playing brinkmanship and still are with the argument over the fiscal cliff. Obama has said that he wanted the middle class tax cut continued.

    sbark, your solution is that same as that being foreced on Greece right now. 25+% unemployment and a shrinking economy have been the result. Deficits will continue into the near future. The solution lies a decrease in unemployment (less people receiving unemployment and more tax revenue). That won’t be done with your solution. We need increased spending on infrastructure, research, etc.

    Edd. Where did Geithner say that the national debt does not matter? He did say setting a ceiling to the debt was not working and that the only time that it became controversial was last year when the legislation with the ficsal cliff was passed. What I read said that he believed that increased taxes were a necessity to help lower future debt and keep our economy sound.
    The disaster was during the Bush administration when they didn’t maintain a budget surplus. Remember, Bush turned a 250 billion dollar surplus into a 600 billion dollar deficit. Why do we keep hitting this subject? Because Conservatives didn’t learn anything from the Bush administration. They want to continue the same old failed policies.

  • kevindf

    All the ND state payrollers who are paid to monitor sites like this one, are under the perception that going over “the fiscal cliff” will mean even more money in their already overloaded pockets.

  • John

    If ND hasn’t been the parasitic state, feeding off the feds for decades, there wouldn’t be this problem.

  • Marty From North Dakota

    Central banks have only two wishes. One, grant them the right to fractional reserve banking so that inflation doesn’t matter. Two, inflate the currency and fund all the wars you can for as long as you can because that is the biggest non-productive activity of the a nation state. Just imagine if you could print all the money you wanted from nothing, lend it out to a mass of people and collect interest every year!