commentaries

This article will be difficult for some to understand as it requires an understanding of macro economics, micro economics, Finance 101 in building wealth within a society. This of course in lieu of the typical response..."Tax the rich."

Yawn, yet another repub who thinks any tax equals piracy. I notice none of them are ever brave enough to actually leave the country.

Thanks for writing this to shine a bright line on the hypocrisy of the editorial board and writers at the Star Tribune. (And it is nice to read your writing again, Mr. Westover.) Decade after decade the Star Tribune supported higher taxes that would be bad for all of us--at all income levels. Then all of a sudden when the Star Tribune--which filed for BANKRUPTCY in Jan. 2009--is going to get hit by the Democratic Party's taxes which they have always supported before, then and ONLY then is it unfair to increase taxes. Don't worry, Star Tribune, the Democrats are planning a billion dollar expansion of welfare spending with your money (billion over one year or two I don't know). So while you are paying higher taxes, Star Tribune, just think of all the "good" the money taken from you is doing helping people get a free ride. Say, what is the "carbon footprint" of all that newsprint and all the delivery people delivering those newspapers to people's homes? Maybe we should have a carbon tax on newspapers? Star Tribune always supported a carbon tax before because of "climate change", so maybe the Star Tribune editors will come out in support of a tax on newspapers? Hmmm?

WESTOVER proclaims: "What is true in this specific case is true in general: Every tax, large or small, for whatever purpose, legitimate or frivolous, redistributes wealth and distorts the market." Do the 'let the markets decide' advocates make the same arguments when their legions of lobbyists, accountants, lawyers, political stooges, and philosophical purists descend on the capitol to demand tax preferences, exceptions, subsidies, earmarks to protect or support their endeavors? Is that why the tax codes (both federal and the several states) run thousands of pages and require professional interpretation to navigate them? Everyone it seems wants to simplify the code and lower tax burdens until it comes to their specific requirements. Econ 101--of course! Its called self interest.

"All taxes, albeit to varying degrees, yield the same negative consequences irrespective of their good intentions."

Such simplistic thinking shows the lack of education of this author. Taxes in themselves do not have negative consequences. How the taxes are spent can result in negative consequences. They can also result in positive consequences. Extreme statements such as the above are exactly why moderates are leaving government positions and the nation is crippled by talking points over logic.

One gets the impression after reading Westover's counterpoint that government taxes the populace just for grins. After all, the infrastructure of our society he apparently takes for granted has always been here, right? It seems there are some folks out there only to willing to enjoy the benefits of our society. Just don't ask 'em to help pay for it.

From the article: "All taxes, albeit to varying degrees, yield the same negative consequences irrespective of their good intentions." Combined with cstoney48's elaboration on this absolutist drivel, pitythefools, and followed to its (il)logical conclusion, the best government would provide no services, promulgate no regulations and, certainly, collect no taxes....

Wow, another guy who does not like taxes. As all the response against taxes I have yet to see anyone propose any realistic solutions to capturing revenue to put our finances on firm ground. I am sure the smokers are against the proposed rise in cigarette taxes, from this article we know there is resistance from the business community toward taxes on their services or products. Show me a tax someone doesn't like and I'll show you a group who is not paying attention to current events. Suck it up everyone, we need to raise revenue somehow.

Thank you for providing such a well-written guest editorial. It's not easy to make economics interesting/entertaining. Obviously, some commentors have a real problem separating the messenger from the message - whether it's you and your editorial or Dayton and his poorly thought out plan. ALL taxes are (obviously) redistribution of wealth/assets. Much of it is necessary and fair. Much isn't. At some point, we're going to have to quit trying to "grow government" and instead try to improve the way government operates. If we concentrate on the latter, we won't have to continue to "take more" out of the private sector, send it through the middlemen (the government) and give it to the chosen. Although it is very likely that the Strib's Editorial Board will "reconvert" as soon as this dilemma passes (it's nice to have friends in high places), at least they (for a short time) demonstrate some understanding of basic economics..... Thanks for writing!

As usual, the crowd that lives on entitlements - the fruit of others labor - rushes in to criticize the belief that taxes are too high and government spending is out of control.