Breakthrough Web Design - 515-897-1144 - Web sites for businesses
News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the Entire North Iowa Region

Founded October 1, 2010


Senator Hogg Calls for “Branstad Rule” for Tax Fairness after Governor Branstad Pays $52 in State Taxes


This news story was published on April 24, 2012.
Advertise on NIT Subscribe to NIT

DES MOINES – State Senator Rob Hogg today urged the Iowa Legislature to consider a “Branstad Rule” to make Iowa’s state income tax system more fair.  Over the weekend, Governor Branstad reported that he only paid $52 in state income taxes in 2011 despite an income of more than $190,000.

In a short statement on the floor of the Iowa Senate, Senator Hogg encouraged Iowans to compare their income and state income taxes with Governor Branstad’s

“The fact that Governor Branstad only paid $52 in state income taxes while earning more than $190,000 shows that our state income tax system is unfair,” Hogg said.  “It is wrong that a person making $190,000 a year pays less income tax than most Iowans earning between $30,000 and $40,000.”

According to the Iowa Department of Revenue, the average tax bill for people earning between $30,000 and $40,000 in adjusted gross income was $1,008.

Last year, Governor Branstad twice vetoed an increase in the earned income tax credit for working families.  “Governor Branstad paid less state income tax than most working families who would have benefited from the earned income tax credit that he vetoed,” Hogg said.

Like the proposed national “Buffett Rule” to make sure millionaires pay as much federal income tax as their secretaries, Hogg called for a “Branstad Rule” to make sure taxpayers like Governor Branstad contribute at least as much to schools and public safety as working families.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

5 Responses to Senator Hogg Calls for “Branstad Rule” for Tax Fairness after Governor Branstad Pays $52 in State Taxes

  1. 1 4 victory Reply Report comment

    April 29, 2012 at 9:15 am

    This sucks I made 25000.00 and had to pay the state over 500.00 as I didnt have enough deducted from my pay check, WTF

  2. bodacious Reply Report comment

    April 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Branstad has always run the government on 2 sets of rules. Paying $52 in Iowa tax is ridiculous just like drawing money from IPERS while he is serving as governor is wrong. But he does it and makes no apology for it. He won’t make any statements about it either. He refuses to defend what he knows is wrong if he or one of his minions is involved but will castigate any one who (in his opinion) is doing something questionable. He is a quack.

  3. Mike Petersen Reply Report comment

    April 24, 2012 at 10:33 am

    I’m not trying to rag on Branstad here. I actually tend to vote republican more often than not and I would like to see the other politicians release their records as well just to be fair. That being said, it just seems like something doesn’t add up. Even at the low rate of 15%, $52 would mean he only had roughly $347 of taxable income? Out of $190,000 it doesn’t seem like he could have gave away that much to charity. If he did, he should really be taunting that.

  4. Mike Petersen Reply Report comment

    April 24, 2012 at 9:43 am

    What is going on here? Do state employees not have to pay state taxes? I’m not being facetious, I am actually in the dark on this. I understand how people can hide some of their private income and take advantage of loopholes but why wouldn’t he have to pay a standard tax rate on at least his governor’s salary? Also, have the other state elected officials released their records?

    • LVS Reply Report comment

      April 24, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Like most of us he had legitimit deductions and charity’s that he donated to. Because he makes more money he has more to donate and does like a lot of people and would rather give it to charity than to the government. Also, he probably falls in the 15% tax rate for investment income. As I understand (I could be wrong here) they have already paid tax on the money they are investing therefore they only pay for 15% of the investment profits. I don’t say it is right but I think this is the way they do it. I have always had a issue with percentage’s. They favor the higher number.