President Trump proposed cutting taxes the other day, and lo and behold the Democrats said the sky was falling. Just take a deep breath and think about this: (1) When you lower taxes, the government actually takes in more revenue because of increased economic activity, and (2) maybe the government should consider cutting some expenditures.
Aaron Kubasch, Winsted, Minn.
• • •
There is no chance at all that tax cuts for corporations will create a strong middle class. It is impossible! Corporations are not going to suddenly and voluntarily share the wealth with their employees by dramatically increasing their wages on a long-term basis, by implementing profit-sharing programs, and by reinstating health benefits and retirement plans. Corporate profits have soared over the past 20 years because corporations took these things away from their employees, based on rhetoric that corporations had to do this in order to stay competitive. The competition, however, was more about return on investment for investors than it was about competition within the industry.
There is absolutely no way that corporations are going to share the wealth with their employees unless it is involuntarily pried from their fingers. In the 1950s through the 1980s, when the middle class was very strong, the task of prying money from the hands of employers in terms of wages, benefits and working conditions was the job of labor unions. When labor unions succeeded in doing this, it benefited union and nonunion employees alike. More money in the hands of large numbers of employees created the demand for more goods and services, which in turn was good for business.
If President Trump were sincere about rebuilding the middle class, he would be a strong advocate for strong unions, profit-sharing, employee-owned businesses, credit unions, and nonprofit businesses in critical areas of public welfare (like health insurance). No chance of that!
John A. Mattsen, New Brighton
• • •
President Trump's net worth, according to Forbes, is $3.5 billion. The current top estate tax rate is 40 percent. If the president's proposed tax plan, which includes eliminating the estate tax, is enacted, upon his death, his tax plan could eventually save his estate some $1.4 billion.
Eliminating the estate tax on deceased owners of farms and small businesses makes a lot of sense, but on billionaires like the president?
Michael Flannigan, Deephaven
• • •
Tax cuts for all! Free money for everyone! Wait, 51 percent goes to the top 1 percent of earners? OK, fine, some get more than others. Jeez, let's not rile those waters, the last thing we need is a class war. Wait, the money's not free? $5.5 trillion added to the national debt? $5.5 trillion — and we didn't fix a single bridge? Didn't hire a single teacher? Didn't clean up one river or launch one rocket or rehab one soldier? You know, I'm afraid this doesn't sound much like leadership. It sounds more like passing the buck to some hypothetical future new age of leadership. Wait, I get it! It's trickle-down leadership! Great, so when can I expect my rebate?
Timothy L. Hennum, Minneapolis
• • •
One of the touted features of the Trump tax reform plan is the reduction in number of tax rate categories from five to three, in order to simplify the system for taxpayers whose brains are apparently overtaxed. The claimed benefit of this is that taxpayers would only have to decide which of three income categories they fall into, not which of five categories. The down side is that this system would be less progressive, so that lower-income people would tend to pay the same rates as people with far higher incomes. The more categories, the more individualized and more progressive the tax system is. The fewer categories, the more it is the same rate for all, and the greater degree to which lower-income people pay the same rate as higher-income people.
The extreme of simplicity is a flat tax, which is very simple, but is much harder on lower- than higher-income folks. Trump said he loves the poorly educated. I guess he is trying to make their choices simpler, but as a result, many will be paying a higher tax rate than if there were more categories. My impression is that the hard part of doing your taxes is figuring out your taxable income. Once you've figured this out, figuring out which of three or five or seven or nine or 11 or 13 tables to use to calculate your tax, based on your taxable income, seems like it is the easy part. And if not, ask a friend to help you.
Kent R. Bailey, Rochester
• • •
I'm sure Garrison Keillor's April 28 column ("Man it's great to be me …") was intended to be his satirical take on President Trump.
But he blew it and gave himself away in the last paragraph, writing: "Anyone who thinks otherwise is just bitter about the election."
Richard Naaktgeboren, Maple Lake, Minn.
MINNEAPOLIS POLICE
Hodges override of chief's choice is not unprecedented
The April 27 article about the Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges' override of former union president John Delmonico's promotion ("Mayor vetoes chief's choice for 4th Precinct") reminded me of two related incidents in Minneapolis Police Department history.
In 1992, the Police Federation agreed in contract to allow Chief John Laux to have seven inspectors. Laux announced I would become the inspector at the Third Precinct, and it appeared in the Star Tribune. The union then successfully fought the enabling legislation at the State Capitol, and my promotion was withdrawn. A bit of irony there.
In the same April 27 article, recently retired Lt. Mike Sauro said he could think of no similar intervention in his 42 years of service. I would remind my friend and former partner that Mayor Sharon Sayles-Belton overrode Acting Chief Rick Schultz's decision not to fire him.
Greg Hestness, Minneapolis
The writer is a retired University of Minnesota police chief and Minneapolis Police Department deputy chief.
STUDENT COSTS
Proposal to make fees optional would hurt more than help
Regarding "Fees at public colleges targeted" (April 20): The legislative proposal to make payments for various campus groups optional would be detrimental to the University of Minnesota system. As a student at UMD, I know that my student fees go toward covering the cost of the mental health services on campus. These services are needed now more than ever. After a personal experience of a good friend and roommate of mine needing these services, I realized how understaffed we really are on campus. Cutting out these student fees would make this situation even worse.
These fees also go to providing money for the athletic programs here on the Duluth campus. I am also involved in many other organizations on campus, including Be the Match, Phi Sigma Sigma, the University Senate Committee on Student Affairs, and the women's soccer team (as film manager). If these fees get taken away, so do many opportunities around campus. This provision would do the opposite of helping the collegiate systems.
Emma Olson, Otsego, Minn.
KQRS RADIO
It's just a tired format
Many years ago, there were two AM "rock stations" in the Twin Cities. We could count on the same 10 songs being played over and over all day. Frankie Valli, Dionne Warwick, the Archies, Neil Diamond, and other artists who sounded just the same. Along came KQRS on FM, and we were thrilled. Songs from albums and groups we actually bought and listened to on our stereos — now we could hear it in the car!
Sadly, KQRS has fallen into the same rut. R.E.O. Speedwagon, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Journey, Queen and the Eagles, over and over. The result is a ratings drop, so they fire two announcers, Brian Zep and Terri Traen ("Terri Traen on KQRS ouster: 'It feels like death,' " Artcetera blog, StarTribune.com, April 27). It wasn't their fault. By the way, the big guy in the morning, Tom Barnard, hasn't been funny for a long time. His constant whining is very tiresome. How about a format change? Keep the classic rock, but play some deeper cuts and try to go a month without playing the aforementioned groups.
