Sen. Pat Jones readies for big changes

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 9:06 p.m.

    The best part about Pat Jones is that at least she came out and admitted she is a Democrat. There are too many people who believe in government control of everything but they run as Republicans to get elected.

    NeilT - are you going to feel punished as you collect your social security benefits? Those children you were "penalized" for are going to be paying your benefits for 15-20 years because there is no money in the "trust fund" to pay. As they try to start families and hopefully find jobs they will be paying more than 7 percent of their income (14 % if self-employed) to pay out benefits which will add up to several times of what you paid into the system. Ironically, much of what they pay in will go to people far wealthier than they. Why should they be "penalized" to pay for rich old people?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 10, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Re: ". . . do the right thing and eliminate an unfair exemption."

    Funny how it was perfectly fair when others were paying for your education, but it's unfair when you have to do the same.


  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    I am single adult and I am being punished for it comes tax time. I agree with deserethound. Senator Jones is a courageous lady and I wish her the best. I seriously doubt her proposal will ever pass. At least she is trying to do the right thing and eliminate an unfair exemption.

  • BH Tremonton, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 5:40 p.m.


    Thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it. One big omission, though. What accomplishments, specifically, does the Eleanor Roosevelt Award recognize? While the article described many great accomplishments on Pat's part, the reader wasn't told why she received this award.

    Honestly, we more frequently see articles like this, that have a headline which leads us to believe the article is about one subject, and then when we read the article, we find very little content about the headline. Why don't you write an article about that, and tell the DMN reader, why that is!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    Sure sounds like she still wants to impose her preferred liberal solutions, as is the case with most Democrats.

    So, the only question is- What statewide office is she itching to run for: Governor, or Senator?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Re: ". . . it IS INDEED shortsighted to think we should be able to raise these large families with lots of kids and not be obligated to pay for their education."

    Oh, we pay for their education. In fact, we pay a larger percentage of our state budget to education than any other state. And nearly all that comes directly from Utah family incomes, not from taxes on property, as is the case almost everywhere else.

    We're greatly hampered, of course, by huge [70+ percent] non-taxable absentee federal landholdings in Utah, although Big Education in Utah has NEVER pinned itself down to a figure that would satisfy its union bosses, even if we were able to somehow replace federal losses.

    But, by EVERY objective measure, we do quite well with what we've got.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Oct. 9, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    @ Deserthound

    Have some issues with your post:
    1. Please explain the difference between if I have to pay $1000 more due to a tax hike vs paying $1000 more due eliminating a deduction? Either way I'm out $1000 bucks regardless of word choice.

    2. The concept of tax deductions is an acknowledge that certain individual behavior is beneficial to the public as a whole. IE..alternate energy credits. Is your argument that having children should no longer be considered beneficial anymore because there are just too many of them running around now?

    3. Please draw the correlation between $ thrown at education and the quality. I know general common sense dictates it must be there somewhere, but I've seen so much government waste in many areas I'm skeptical. Please explain what NY (highest per pupil in FY2011) gets for their $19,076 per pupil that Utah (lowest per pupil in FY2011) doesn't get for their $6,212.

  • deserthound Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @ Florwood - It depends on how you choose to look at it. Jones' proposal isn't actually "raising taxes." She is proposing to eliminate the tax exemption, one that should have never been there in the first place. That is far different than "raising taxes." In a state where our public ed system is already heavily burdened with our large families and young demographics, Utah should be paying more for public ed rather than dead last in the country. If Utahns were so inclined to put their money where their mouths are - that being the value of kids of large families - they would also be inclined to consider this exemption elimination as the long-overdue investment in our kids and the state's future. A populace supported with good and affordable education opportunities for all pays everyone back in many, many ways. On the other hand, it IS INDEED shortsighted to think we should be able to raise these large families with lots of kids and not be obligated to pay for their education.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    Re: ". . . eliminating the state income tax deduction for children."

    Yeah, that ought to be popular.

    Of course, she's got a lot of experience at hopeless windmill jousting.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Oct. 9, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    Typical lib. do the families get money back as they will be the ones supporting the retired.

  • Florwood American Fork, UT
    Oct. 8, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    While I think her push to raise taxes on families with children is shortsighted, Sen. Jones sounds like a woman to emulate. Best of luck on her next ventures.