I am writing to respond to the commentary written by Lee Lynch, "Please raise my taxes; I can afford it" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 2). I agree with everything he said and commend him for the courage to say it. However, I offer a different approach.
Many who express resistance to higher taxes believe strongly that governments that collect the additional taxes are very inefficient and waste a meaningful percentage of the revenues that flow through them. "I would be happy to pay more in taxes to help the disadvantaged, but I can't stand the wastefulness of government" is a frequent refrain of the wealthy.
Regrettably, these same wealthy are free to make voluntary donations to nonprofits that serve the community but do not, even though they profess to care about the disadvantaged. One cannot credibly resist higher taxes as "inefficient" and then not make charitable donations in lieu of paying higher taxes. One way or the other we must address the needs of our community, and we need the wealthy to pay more, as Lynch points out.
My recommendation is that governments impose a special surtax on the wealthy (5% on income above $1 million?) but give the wealthy taxpayer a choice. Either pay the higher taxes to government or make a donation in the amount of the surtax to qualified 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations. The donation must be made in the same year that the taxes would be due.
If donated to a nonprofit, the additional money would flow directly into the community rather than through the government, which would eliminate the excuse for not wanting to pay higher taxes.
Steve Sefton, Minneapolis
• • •
A Tuesday letter writer misses the point of Lee Lynch's commentary advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy as a solution to our crippling deficits when making the oft-repeated argument that Lynch is welcome to pay more than his mandatory amount if he feels he is not paying his fair share. Obviously, Lynch electing to pay more in taxes is not going to solve our budget issues by itself. Instead, Lynch would like to see all 1-percenters required to pay more in taxes in order to not leave these huge debts for our children and grandchildren to eventually pay off.
Philip M. Ahern, Shorewood
• • •
A writer from Stillwater complained in Tuesday's letters about the "high" tax rates in Minnesota. He mentioned the steps taken to compensate his employees but fails to recognize the state-supported programs that make Minnesota a desirable place to live. Then he claims without evidence that there is "waste, fraud and abuse" in public spending. Perhaps this writer would care to explain which of the programs contains all this "abuse"? Would it be the underfunded public health system? The underfunded education system? The underfunded transportation system? The underfunded early child-care system? All of these public projects create the opportunity for his employees to show up at work each and every day so that he can be successful as an entrepreneur.
George Hutchinson, Minneapolis
• • •
I certainly have to agree with a Monday letter writer as to the hypocrisy of Republicans now wanting to support fiscal prudence after the massive giveaway that was their tax "reform." To my surprise and gratification, however, on certain points of their counterproposal to the president's stimulus plan, I agree with them. The money, however much it is, really needs to be directed to those in real need — "well-thought-out" dollars, to quote the letter writer. To borrow his analogy of the sinking life raft, we need to make sure the life vests we're tossing out are actually landing in the raft, and not on a passing cruise ship (which is where so many of us, in truth, find ourselves).