Summary
- Minnesota Rep. Athena Hollins (DFL) proposed HF4845 to create a fifth income tax bracket at 10.85% on earnings over $1 million (married filing jointly) or $600,000 (single), aimed at boosting local government aid.
- During committee debate, Hollins openly welcomed the “class warfare” label, stating, “don’t threaten me with a good time” and quoting “when the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.”
- The proposal fits a broader pattern in high-tax blue states like California, where lawmakers repeatedly target high earners with new brackets, wealth taxes, and surcharges, often driving wealthy residents and businesses to lower-tax states.
What Happened
On April 29, 2026, the Minnesota House Taxes Committee debated HF4845, sponsored by Rep. Athena Hollins. The bill would add a new top income tax rate of 10.85% for high-income Minnesotans, with revenue directed toward increased local government aid and county program aid.
In the hearing, Hollins responded to Republican concerns about the impact on high earners by embracing the “class warfare” framing. She stated the proposal was about making the wealthy pay their “fair share” and referenced the idea that “when the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” The bill is part of ongoing Democratic efforts to expand state revenue through progressive taxation.
Why It Matters
Raising taxes on high-income individuals may sound like a simple way to fund government programs, but it often leads to reduced investment, job creation, and economic growth in the state. Wealthy residents and businesses can relocate more easily than lower-income families, taking their tax revenue, jobs, and charitable giving with them. When states like Minnesota and California pursue aggressive “soak the rich” policies, they risk shrinking the tax base they rely on, ultimately shifting the burden to middle-class taxpayers or cutting services.
Notable Reactions
Critics online called the rhetoric divisive and warned that “eating the rich” historically ends with fewer rich people to tax. Supporters of the bill framed it as necessary to fund local services amid budget pressures, while opponents argued it would accelerate out-migration from Minnesota.
The Bigger Picture
Minnesota’s proposed fifth tax tier is part of a recurring strategy in Democrat-led states to target high earners. California already imposes the nation’s highest top marginal income tax rate (13.3% plus an additional 1% mental health services tax on incomes over $1 million), and lawmakers have repeatedly pushed wealth taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and surcharges on the ultra-wealthy. Similar efforts have appeared in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, often justified as “fairness” measures.
These policies frequently coincide with wealthy residents leaving for lower-tax states. California has lost hundreds of thousands of high-income households in recent years, with many relocating to Texas, Florida, and Nevada — states with no income tax. Minnesota faces the same risk: data from the IRS and state migration studies show high earners are highly mobile and sensitive to tax increases.
While proponents argue the revenue funds essential services, critics point to evidence that excessive taxation on productive citizens reduces overall economic activity, leading to slower growth and less revenue than projected. The pattern across blue states suggests that “tax the rich” policies often result in the rich leaving, the middle class paying more, and governments still facing shortfalls — a cycle that ultimately harms the very working families these measures claim to help.
Sources
Minnesota House of Representatives Session Daily coverage of HF4845 and Rep. Hollins’ comments: https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/19132
LegiScan summary of HF4845 (2025-2026 session): https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HF4845/2025
Under The Fold News 