Readers write for Friday, Feb. 18

I have often wondered how so many people will vote against their own best interests.

A prime example is a letter about Gov. Mark Dayton's tax proposals asking how a combined taxable income of $150,000 could be considered rich (Readers Write, Feb. 17).

The fault is in how the Star Tribune's front-page summary of the proposal was reported. I instinctively knew that a rapid reading would result in misunderstanding the proposal by overlooking that all important "top tier" modifier.

There is no increase in tax on the first $150,000 in income; there is a progressive increase on each tier of additional income.

The income tax is thus a progressive tax, and is much fairer than any regressive tax. Sales or property taxes take a much larger percentage of total income from the working poor and middle class than from higher-wage earners.

Higher-wage earners should think about how they came to be that way.

The luck of genetic inheritance as well as the family into which they were born played a huge role, and they worked very hard but also relied on taxpayers' support of education, infrastructure and so on.

Her reply was: "Shut up and be grateful you are on the paying end."

MARTIN A. SEGAL, EDINA

• • •

To the letter writer who wondered how $150,000 can be considered "rich": Because 95 percent of the rest of us are further down the ladder, looking up at you; because median household income is somewhere around $55,000, and because the government says a family of four is "poor" only when its income drops below $22,000. That's how.

CARLA STEEN, ST. PAUL

It is time for Minnesotans to acknowledge that the rich among us have their own entitlement program -- lower tax rates.

JANE HOVLAND, DULUTH

• • •

The Republicans in the Legislature should be congratulated. They have found the way to eliminate the state deficit without upsetting the natural order of things.

They can cut programs for the indigent, the handicapped, the infirm, the hungry, the disadvantaged. (These people are used to suffering, so what difference would a little more make?)

It would be a disturbing experience. It would be unnatural.

GEORGE A. FARR, PLYMOUTH

• • •

After reading the Star Tribune's Feb. 15 editorial ("Dayton plan misses competitive reality"), I had to rub my eyes and make sure I wasn't reading the Wall Street Journal.

The governor is simply following up on his campaign pledge to make the rich pay a fair share in taxes, which he points out is long overdue.

And if it means bringing tax rates into line among income levels, so be it -- better to be known as a high-tax state than a low-quality one. Let's be clear: Those are stark alternatives.

HUGH CURTLER, BROOKLYN PARK

As a smoker of 40-plus years, I fully support a smoking ban in most buildings. I even support bans at front doors and bus shelters.

But I don't understand smoking bans outside (except in open-air cafes). How can the secondhand smoke outside affect anyone when it rises as I exhale?

Also, I believe that establishments should be allowed to choose to be for smokers only.

Remember, smokers were first to face this type of discrimination. Now the government wants to decide what I eat and how much. What's next, our love lives?

TONY ACHARTZ, SAVAGE

• • •

I think it is ironic that some schools in Minnesota are considering going to a four-day week while there are some people who would like to see off-sale liquor stores increase their workweek to seven days.

DAVE KLITZKE, LESTER PRAIRIE, MINN.

His union busting (under the guise of balancing the budget) has hurt both employment in the state and the Wisconsin "brand."

Businesses want a solid infrastructure, access to workers, a strong educational system for the children of employees and consumers willing to buy their offerings.

They will be hesitant to move to a state where the governor obstructs the creation of green jobs, demotivates the workforce, reduces consumers' ability to spend and exhibits blatant cronyism.

LINDA GORCHELS, FITCHBURG, WIS.

• • •

I highly doubt it. You see, Packer fans: This is what happens when the government runs out of money. It borrows yours.

JOHNNY LOVE, ST. PAUL

The Twins, who got a new stadium courtesy of taxpayers, now want their games to be seen only by those who can afford seats or cable or satellite TV?

Again, the rich get what they want, then thumb their noses at those who are subsidizing it.