The Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce board of directors adopts policy only after Chamber members have an opportunity to offer their feedback. Normally, feedback is solicited during the Government & Policy Task Force (G&PTF) – a monthly meeting that is open to all members. After any proposed policy is debated in the G&PTF, it is forwarded to the Chamber’s executive committee for review. At this point, the proposed policy is either passed to the full board of directors for their consideration or it is rejected by the executive committee. If the proposed policy is approved by the executive committee, it is moved along to the board for adoption as policy, modification, further reconsideration, or rejection. Regardless is potential policy is accepted or rejected at the executive and board levels, it is important to note that as a Chamber member, you have the ability to voice your opinion.
At the Government & Policy Task Force meeting on Wednesday, April 20, we discussed taxation policy. In this case, the task force asked that I, along with a few members from the group, meet independently to further refine the policy before the task force meets again in May. Given our ability to communicate electronically with our members, I thought it might be beneficial to solicit feedback directly. Take a moment to read the statement below, email me your feedback, and I’ll consider your comments when revising the policy.
Email me directly by clicking on the button to the left.
Again, thank you for being a member of the Chamber.
Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce Taxation Policy - Draft
Taxation is a primary concern to our members. The Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce is concerned with the ramification of taxation upon the economy of Northeastern Minnesota and the ability of businesses to compete within a global economy.
We understand the primary function of government to be the provision of public health, safety, primary education, a healthy environment, and a pro-competition milieu within a regulatory atmosphere that makes sense. Further, we understand the government needs to provide a regulatory function to society that ensures businesses operate for the public good. This public good is different from corporate social responsibility in that the government must provide for anti-trust enforcement, open and fair competition, and public trust. Government, then, is not, and should not, be considered an end in itself – it should not compete with private business if it makes good sense for business to provide contracted goods or services at lesser costs to the public.
Given the fact that competition spurs innovation and keeps prices down, the regulatory role of government should spur competition and ensure the collective good of the citizenry. Costs for these services should be collected as fairly as possible from all citizens and should not be collected egregiously from businesses. Further, business should contribute their fair share and not be treated in a preferential manner. The government’s role, then, should be one of regulator.
In a competitive marketplace, prices for goods and services are managed by consumer choice. When a potential consumer deems a price to be too high, he or she quickly sends a “non-competitive” message by shopping elsewhere. Government does not have the same constraints. Citizens are obligated to pay whatever they are told to pay or move elsewhere. Similar to the role of consumer, our role, as a business organization representing the needs of the business community is to balance the need for government revenue against the ability of the marketplace to provide such revenue.
When evaluating the requests of local units of government to raise taxes or fees, we must first consider the real versus politically motivated reasons for such a tax increase. Can the government find adequate areas from which to find efficiencies, or would those proposed efficiencies significantly reduce or eliminate a service that is vital to business success – such as police, fire, and ambulance? Secondly, we must prioritize the most pressing needs of our citizenry. Would the corresponding cuts significantly weaken the marketplace, or could increased taxation be absorbed by those with higher incomes who might simply shift spending and saving priorities? Lastly, we must consider the effects of less government spending upon local business. Will the proposed cuts, as always promised by government officials during budget processes, transcend to the local economy.
Taxation is never easy. However, we should look to minimize its effects while maximizing its benefits to our members.
