TAXING AND SPENDING

Two views regarding the role of government

I saw a TV news clip of a Republican legislator expounding on some part of a Health and Human Services bill. He stated that "we simply cannot afford to continue" to do something or other. I didn't catch the something or other because I was stuck at the "we cannot afford" part.

What struck me was that, in fact, we can afford all sorts of things. We can afford to keep state parks staffed and open, and we can afford to keep the mentally disturbed on their meds. We simply have to pay for it.

What is the problem with that? Doesn't it make us feel good to buy stuff? If these "cannot afford" legislators had been in charge of the country in the early 1800s, the Louisiana Purchase would not have happened and that big chunk of land between the Mississippi and the Rockies, including part of Minnesota, would have remained French territory.

National Parks? Forget it. Those areas might now look like the Wisconsin Dells.

To buy our public goods and services, what if we brought back the individual income tax rates in effect in 2000? At that time, a married couple filing a joint tax return with a $75,000 Minnesota taxable income (quite middle class) was taxed $4,848.

For 2010 the tax is $4,718 -- $130 less. At a $50,000 Minnesota taxable income, the tax was $3,092 and now is $2,963, $129 less. We've been operating under reduced tax rates for some time, and that is partly why we are in such a deep hole. What have you done with your extra $130 per year?

I would have preferred and do prefer to spend mine on public goods and services so that, if nothing else, at least these legislators might quit depressing me with their "we cannot afford" dirge and their really bad analogies.

MARK STEDMAN, AFTON

• • •

I am not an avid listener/reader of the radio talk-show host/journalist Jason Lewis, but I am fast becoming a fan. He's right: The numbers are right there in the state's Tax Incidence Study ("The rich pay the taxes -- that's a fact," April 3), and they are disturbing for several reasons:

1) Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to paying for state government, and when the bottom 20 percent pay no income taxes and receive more than $40 million in refundable tax credits (not to mention services), they are not sharing any of the burden.

2) I am not a fan of "progressive taxation," and I strongly disagree with the premise that it's "fair" to increase the rate of taxation as your income increases simply because you can afford to pay more of that income in taxes as a percentage of your income.

Where is that fairness argument when the top 10 percent of earners in our state pay 56 percent of the total income taxes collected and the bottom 20 percent of earners in our state pay 0 percent of the income taxes collected and receive $40 million in refundable tax credits?

3) I would prefer a simple flat rate income tax without any deductions or exemptions. Think of it like tipping. Assume you tip at 15 percent of the total amount of the bill. The larger the bill, the larger the tip.

Your income may determine where you dine, how much you spend and how often you dine out, but it should not determine the percentage of the bill you leave as a tip unless you choose to leave a larger amount.

4) For those who argue that a flat tax would be "regressive" or "unfair" on the bottom 20 percent, I say, so what? There is nothing "progressive" or "fair" about their paying nothing and receiving credits, and having an equal voice on election day.

Furthermore, if it's "fair" to be "aggressively progressive" when it comes to taxing the "rich" to the point where they leave for a state with lower income taxes or no income taxes (yes, there are states with no income taxes), why is the opposite not true? If the bottom 20 percent want to leave for a more favorable tax environment and lots of government benefits and refunds, that's OK.

DAVID WITTE, PLYMOUTH

* * *

SOCIAL POLICY

Every which way but logical ...

If the prevailing conservative political mood calls for reforming government for fiscal improvement, could we please see that applied to domestic social policy? If only we had a coherent collective response to social vices, we could probably balance the budget in that one policy area alone.

If you smoke tobacco in public, we tax you and force you outside. If you drink in public, we tax you and force you inside. If you gamble, your losses are a tax writeoff and we'll sell you all the lottery tickets you want.

If you smoke pot, we'll force you to support the black market while we spend billions fighting the black market, and if we catch you we'll spend more clogging up our courts and jails with you.

Can we please see more initiative from common-sense fiscal conservatives and less from ranting ideologues?

BOB WORRALL, ROSEVILLE

* * *

To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, please fill out this form. Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion and Facebook at facebook.com/StribOpinion.