Readers Write: (July 2): Edward Snowden, climate change, gift tax, cigarette taxes, protests

  • Updated: July 1, 2013 - 6:22 PM
hide

Photo: ., Tribune Media Services

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger

EDWARD SNOWDEN

Someone has to spill the secrets

The June 28 editorial “Don’t let Snowden set nation’s priorities” was a classic case of blaming the victim. It is true that the debate should be about constitutional issues and not about the cat-and-mouse pursuit of Snowden, but the editorial failed to say how such a profound debate could possibly take place without the facts about massive government surveillance of our communications being leaked to the world. Snowden is simply trying to preserve his freedom to continue revealing the information needed by the citizens of a functioning democracy.

The fault lies with distortion and selective reporting by the news media. A case in point is the bare whisper we have heard about the investigation of retired Gen. James Cartwright for leaking the story of a highly classified U.S. cyberattack on Iran, which rated two and a half inches on page A8 of the Star Tribune on June 28.

RHODA R. GILMAN, St. Paul

ENVIRONMENT

One consequence of ‘fee-and-dividend’

Brian Nowak (“Climate-change fight: The missing component,” June 28) presents a cogent argument for carbon fee-and-dividend legislation to effectively reduce our country’s greenhouse gas emissions. A consequence of such a program could be an increase in the costs of American goods. For this reason, a border tariff adjustment would be advisable, as part of this program to prevent non-carbon-fee countries from dumping goods in the United States (as happens now because of cheap foreign labor). This tariff would have the effect of protecting U.S. businesses while encouraging other governments to adopt their own carbon fees. Ultimately a fee-and-dividend program in the United States could lead to a global carbon pollution agreement based on free-market principles.

BRUCE D. SNYDER, Mendota Heights

GIFT TAX

Another way to drive Minnesotans away

The 2013 Omnibus Tax Bill signed into Minnesota law a new gift tax that went into effect Monday, in addition to the estate tax we already have. The gift tax applies to those who give more than $1 million in taxable gifts — assets valued at more than $14,000 and given to a single recipient — over the course of a lifetime.

The rationale behind the gift tax is that it will help put a stop to tax-avoidance behavior associated with the estate tax, raising an estimated additional $55 million a year in state revenue, without affecting the majority of people in the state. However, this is shortsighted.

While states like Tennessee and Indiana have recently repealed their estate and gift taxes after losing high-income residents to states like Florida and Texas, Minnesota joins Connecticut as the only states left with a gift tax. While the new tax may raise $55 million in revenue next year, in the long run it creates a new incentive for the affected families, and especially retirees, to flee to low tax states.

And not only will this negate revenue sought, it will negatively affect consumption and investment elsewhere in the economy, hurting overall economic growth and the economic climate for all Minnesotans. For the economy to grow, we must reward those who save and invest, not show them the door.

PAT TESTA, Minneapolis

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

 
Close