[Warning to readers: Katherine Kersten, Minnesota’s Coulter-Lite columnist, styles herself as speaking for the average Minnesotan, while refusing having anything to do with about 70 percent of the people in the state. She specializes in pastiches of RNC talking points, under-sourced claims and playground non-sequiturs packed so densely that it’s impossible to respond to every wrong-headed assertion without going on too long.
Today, I just can’t help myself.]
Dear Katherine Kersten,
As one of the “zillionaires” who signed an ad calling for increased investment in Minnesota’s future, I have heard from a number of people who share your views. Some expressed themselves with humor, some with crudity, and some with a tenuous grasp of rudimentary correspondence skills:
I've been asked by Guvernor Paulenty to contact you. We read in the paper that you would like to give money to the state of Minnesota.
Please send you Visa numbe and password, your checkin acount number to us.
We will make sure we get a photo opportunity for you and also a certificate.
Thank hyou.
I have laughed these off, since they are all shot from a pathetic popgun loaded with the same loud blank: Government sucks, and money spent by individuals pursuing private ends accomplishes more than money spent for the common good.
But when you called me out in your June 26th column (“Gang of 200, feel free to spend your money, not ours“), I felt obligated to respond, because progressives who are polite in the face of idiotic statements by conservatives end up being called cowards.
“In the ad, the signers announced their eagerness to fork over new tax money to expand a boatload of Minnesota government programs.”
It’s hopeless to educate via an ad, especially someone whose mind snaps shut at the mere mention of taxes. But since you read past the headline, you should be able to grasp that the proposal has nothing to do with expanding a “boatload” of programs. Rather, it calls for investing selectively in areas where current state spending is deficient — and where continued neglect will harm the state’s economy.
The Growth & Justice proposal is careful to spell out why a return to previous investment levels is wise, how the money might be raised fairly, and why people at higher income levels should pay more of the increase. All details beyond the scope of the typical Kersten drive-by analysis.
“What programs would these additional dollars support?
“Education, health care, transportation — the sorts of government endeavors that have proven capable of swallowing whatever resources we throw at them, no matter how massive.”
Who could argue with that? Education programs offer no discernible benefits to anyone, unlike, say, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The actual proposal, however, calls for no resource throwing, massive or otherwise. Instead, it advocates fiscal discipline and accountability, but that position doesn’t fit with your view of how progressives think, so you ignore it.
“The Gang of 200 seems badly out of touch with ordinary Minnesotans. Perhaps these folks have so much dough that they don't grasp (or recall) what it's like to live within a budget.”
Ooooo, touché! As a zillionaire, I had forgotten what it was like to live within a budget. Then Governor Pawlenty showed me how.
I learned it was wrong to save money when I had a little extra. I learned I should shift current costs to future years and deliberately not seek any new sources of revenue to ease the budget crunch. I learned this allowed me to justify even more severe budgetary measures such as laying off employees, freezing the pay of those left and asking my suppliers to finance their own projects. That’s what living within a budget is like under our present administration.
“After all, when did they last have to raid the rainy day fund to pay for day care or struggle to make payroll at a small business?”
Most Minnesotans who can’t fund day care aren’t dipping into the rainy day fund — because they don’t have one. They’re not coming up short because of taxes. They’re struggling because they don’t have jobs that pay enough. They can’t afford to drive to work and day care from where they can afford to live. The day care options they can find often aren’t providing their kids the enrichment that will get them ready to succeed in school. As for helping their kids with the college education they need to break this cycle, forget it.
Katherine, I met payroll for 17 years, and I remember very well what it took.
It had nothing to do with taxes. It started with a vision and then managing my entire business — instead of just my budget — accordingly. I invested in hiring good people, first-class benefits and technology. Our motto was: Employees paid first, owners last. Some years I did very well; others, my employees earned bonuses and I didn’t.
We focused on quality work and quality relationships that would grow the top line. We didn’t micromanage people. We donated a chunk of profits every year and matched employee charitable contributions. I made sure when employees looked at the boss they would seek to emulate his work ethic, not his life style. I worked very hard and worried a lot, but I wouldn’t call it a struggle to meet payroll.
Maybe you could recommend this business approach to your friends in the Taxpayers League who think government is holding them back.
Now, let me answer the questions you posed.
“Do you currently employ an accountant or lawyer to help you do tax planning, in order to ensure that your tax bill is as low as possible? If so, will you henceforth instruct him or her to maximize the sum you turn over to the state of Minnesota?”
There you go again. First, you accuse us of not knowing anything about budgets. Now, we’re somehow devious for managing our finances like any businessperson. Of course I get help with my returns. It helps me make sure I pay only what’s owed, and it keeps me out of trouble for paying less.
Your second question is nonsense. If you follow the tax rules, there’s no maximized sum. What you’re suggesting is akin to paying a restaurant bill that includes everything on the menu instead of what you ordered. Henceforth, I will pay what I owe, like always.
“Have you established residency outside Minnesota, or do you have assets or income in other states — at least in part because of those states' lower tax rates? If so, will you be returning your wealth to Minnesota, in order to enhance your ability to pay taxes here?”
This is another canard.
Weather, family, cost of living, quality of life and the prospects of rewarding work influence most peoples’ decisions about where to live, including mine. My business, residence and primary tax return remain in Minnesota, but I also paid income, sales and real estate taxes in Colorado, too. That’s fair.
You appear to have me confused with a member of the Taxpayers League or the Naples/Minnesota Mafia who views the world through tax-tinted glasses and makes life decisions based on money.
“Your ad proposes a tax on annual income, not on assets already accumulated. Are you willing to propose taxes based on the substantial wealth you already have, like second homes or art collections, rather than what you earn in any given year?”
You forgot to mention the ad didn’t propose a tax on churches, first born males or saying the Pledge of Allegiance, either. Are you asking me whether I support some kind of estate tax on the living? How does that follow from a proposal to make the income tax more proportional, so the people who benefit most from a growing economy pay their fair share?
If I didn’t know how much you hate people who engage in class warfare, I’d think you were doing just that with your assets tax proposal.
“Better yet, let's have an interim test of the Gang of 200's idea. We'll accept their personal offer of new tax money and funnel their contributions into a government program they believe is underfunded — public schools, for example.
“If this new money makes a measurable difference in Minnesota students' educational performance — say, higher test scores or better graduation rates — we'll ask our legislators to consider the zillionaires' broader proposal to increase taxes on the rest of us.”
Katherine, a “personal offer” is not a tax; maybe it’s a fee. But the tax contribution from 200 won’t be enough to make a difference, and if you did the math, that would be clear.
We agree on the measures. You just don’t want to front the money and set realistic conditions for making the investment work.
Interesting how you insist on seeing data for things you don’t want to believe in — such as public education — but don’t have similar standards for things you do believe in.
I think we should study how the money donated to churches makes a measurable difference — say, reduced poverty or higher admission rates to heaven. If you can document the increase, I’ll gladly divert all my zillions to support your cause.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Sincerely,
The Littlest Zillionaire
Recent Comments