logo
Minnesota bill would repeal new 50-cent retail delivery fee on packages of $100 or more

Minnesota bill would repeal new 50-cent retail delivery fee on packages of $100 or more

CBS News15-02-2025

Minnesotans are paying 50 cents more on large package deliveries thanks to a law change that took effect last summer — designed to raise more funding to support road and bridge repairs.
But a bill that would ditch that delivery fee, less than one year after implementation, advanced in the state legislature this week.
Rep. Erin Koegel, DFL-Spring Lake Park, introduced the fee two years ago because she noticed her own shopping habits change and wanted to be creative to ensure the state would be able to sustain transportation infrastructure projects into the future.
The main sources of revenue come from the gas tax and other user fees, like car tabs.
"We know with more of an adoption of electric vehicles, that we're going to lose gas tax revenue. And so we need to find ways to kind of look towards the future and figure out how we're going to fund our transportation system so we don't end up with a huge budget shortfall," she said.
Rep. Jim Joy, R-Hawley, introduced legislation this session to repeal the law and also undo some gas tax increases. He believes it's necessary to help Minnesotans struggling with the high cost of living.
"This is the first time in Minnesota we've had a tax on clothing because of the delivery fee. This is making Minnesota more affordable," Joy said.
The 50-cent fee applies to packages valued at $100 or more, but there are exemptions like groceries and prescription drugs when calculating that threshold — items for which customers also don't pay sales tax. Clothing is not exempt from the delivery fee, though a sales tax isn't applied.
Bruce Nustad, president of the Minnesota Retailers Association, told the House Transportation Committee on Monday that these caveats can be burdensome for businesses as they try to determine what they owe.
"Businesses small and large have had to build entirely new compliance systems to track, collect and remit the fee," he said.
The original retail fee proposal two years ago was a 75-cent fee on most deliveries and an estimate projected it would bring in $210 million annually, according to MinnPost. The compromise in the end was the 50-cent fee with the $100 purchase floor.
In the first six months since implementation, revenues have been about $12 million, according to data from the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
That's short of the initial estimates under the first proposal, but Koegel believes having a new dedicated funding stream — no matter how much — is better than not having one at all.
"We know that our small cities and townships were desperate for any kind of source of revenue, and so this was a foot in the door," Koegel said. "I would really love to come back and see the threshold or the rate lowered, and then have it applied to more deliveries and maybe just set it at all sales taxable items."
Joy's bill to outright repeal the fee is unlikely to pass in a divided legislature where Republicans and Democrats will have to find compromise on the next two-year budget.
But there could be room for tweaks to the law, like Koegel suggested.
Joy's bill did advance out of its first committee on Monday, though he acknowledged the legislation likely would change. Nustad, who represents retailers, testified removing the $100 threshold would simplify the process for businesses.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

UPI

time20 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) played the feud between President Donald Trump and former DOGE henchman Elon Musk for laughs on Thursday. (Watch the video below.) Approached by Spectrum News 1 about the fracture in their bromance, the smiling AOC said: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' The progressive lawmaker could be forgiven for a little regressive humor. She has been one of the Democrats' most vocal opponents of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' ― the legislation that actually ignited the Trump-Musk row. Musk called the spending measure an abomination and once Trump finally expressed his disappointment in the Tesla magnate and Trump mega-donor, things turned personal between the two. The bill is being ironed out in the Senate and would reportedly ax 11 million people off Medicaid over time. Ocasio-Cortez had made a similar prediction last month. 'When this country wakes up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this,' she said at the time. But perhaps she didn't see the bill resulting in the breakup of DC's premier platonic power couple. For a moment anyway, it was something to crack wise about. AOC on Musk and Trump: "the girls are fighting aren't they ?"💀 — Winter Politics (@WinterPolitics1) June 6, 2025 Stephen Colbert Spots The Musk-Trump Feud Moment That Proves 'Things Are Bad' 1 Subtle Barb In Trump-Musk Blow-Out Has Dana Bash Saying 'Wow, Wow, Wow' 'My Prediction': Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Ugly Next Phase Of Trump-Musk Feud

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time25 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store