Shot In The Dark: Compassion

May 26, 2005

Compassion

Katherine Kersten, the Strib's new token conservative, and her new column are finally up and running in the Strib.

And she's off to a great start, bringing what promises to be a healthy, long-overdue dollop of reason and common sense to a columnist roster that has ranged from Doug Grow's mild hectoring to Kim Ode's incongruity to whatever it is that Nick Coleman does.

Her first column gets the party started right.

She tackles Archbishop Flynn's rant last week against our status as merely a very highly taxed state:

According to the Federation of Tax Administrators, Minnesota ranked sixth among states in the per capita burden of state and local taxes in 2002, the latest year for which figures are available.

If the archbishop is right, the best way to show our compassion would be to become No. 1 -- the highest-taxed state in the nation. This might make some of us feel good. But I suspect it would be the worst thing to do if we really want to help poor Minnesotans.

Let's take an example: If the proposition that high taxes benefit the poor is correct, the luxury boat tax that Congress passed in 1990 was the perfect tax. It sought to raise revenue by targeting only the richest Americans, who could well afford to pay, and slapping a 10 percent tax on fancy boats.

Problem was, the rich didn't pay the tax. They just went to the Bahamas to buy their boats. But the tax devastated the domestic boat-building industry. Tens of thousands of working-class people -- shipyard workers, carpenters, janitors at boat stores -- were thrown out of work. Congress hastily repealed the tax.

The lawmakers who proposed the luxury boat tax may well have been motivated by compassion. Unfortunately, reality trumped wishful thinking. In the end, these officials hurt the very people they intended to help.

Read on.

Posted by Mitch at May 26, 2005 08:47 AM | TrackBack

Comments

During the height of the election season last year, I tried to point out to my PoliSci prof in class that there was no reason to admire rich people paying 15% tax rates advocating higher taxes because it would always be the average and lower income people who were hit hardest.

He couldn't get that, a man with a Ph.D. could not get past the idea that 'rich people will pay more', which is false. Truly rich people have ways to avoid paying the taxes they publicly support. Middle and lower class earners /don't/ have that luxury, and thus get hurt worse.

The prof prided himself on his talent for fiscal policy too. Neat guy, but a little dumb with regards to economics.

Posted by: aodhan at May 26, 2005 10:01 AM

I responded with an email of welcome, support and thanks to Katherine Kersten. A voice like hers is indeed long overdue at the Red Star Fishwrap. Her article was spot on.

I ran into some of the same issues as aodhan experienced in my encounters with Economics professors at the University of MN. The fundamental issue is that many are stuck in the paradigm that resources are finite and cannot be created or made more productive. Economics is not a zero sum game. Just because a wealthy person gets a dollar, it doesn't mean a poor person is denied a dollar.

Regarding the archbishop. I would like to see a relationship between changes in tax rate and changes in charitable giving. I wonder how the archbishop would feel if those new tax dollars were in effect being pulled out of Catholic Charities (a great organization). Also, I'm guessing a much larger percentage of a dollar given to Catholic Charities gets to those in need than a dollar taken by taxes.

Posted by: Barry H at May 26, 2005 10:29 AM

Helping poor people by paying higher taxes to the state is like buying an extra case of Kellogg's corn flakes inorder to help your farmer parents pay their mortgage.

Posted by: RBMN at May 26, 2005 10:52 AM

The last time Kersten wrote in the STrib, she was the obsessive target of the rest of the editorial page. The Letters to the Editor attacked her with some of the most nasty language I've seen in a major newspaper.

She must have an iron constitution (or a masochist streak) to willingly walk back into the lion's den once again.

Posted by: Gideon at May 26, 2005 11:56 AM

Even worse, it is a fact that, of the money we dedicate to helping the poor and kids and (insert another victim group here), only a percentage of the funds actually GETS to the problem. Administrative costs greatly deminish the amounts before they reach their intended needs.

Lets take HHS as an example. More money for welfare means we can add more people to the program. Adding more people to the program means a higher demand for agents to monitor the recepients. Also, more staff is needed for program compliance with the Feds, and it goes on and on and on and on.

So, ArchBishop, let's get honest here. Your idea should be more accurately called: The 2005 Expansion of Government Act. More government jobs (and you wonder why the Public Employees Union thugs are smiling right now?).

Meanwhile...there will be a few more crumbs for the poor. Nice idea, ArchBishop. Don't quit your day job.

Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 12:39 PM

In her last round as a guest columnist, I thought she was a bit lazy. Her columns were often mere book reviews. The targets of her indignation were all too predictable. When Kersten applies both her love of free enterprise and her distaste of taxation to the issue of stadium deals, then I will be impressed.

Posted by: Pete at May 26, 2005 01:47 PM

When you anti-tax puppies start paying cash tolls on the freeways that your drive every day and stop supporting stadiums for billionaires, you will be taken seriously. This administration has increased taxes (pardon me, "fees") for every Minnesotan. What a horseshit job. And you idiots fall for it.

Posted by: blogesota at May 30, 2005 02:38 PM

BS,

Read the damn blog, ignorant one. I've always favored toll roads...

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/000389.html

...and have always opposed stadium subsidies:

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/005561.html

Your problem, Blogesota, is that you're a bigot. You're a left-wing Archie Bunker! You operate purely from puerile preconceptions, without ever really bothering to *know* what you're talking about, especially when you're talking about people with whom you disagree.

Bigot. Ugly word - and right on the nose in your case.

Posted by: mitch at May 31, 2005 05:17 PM

Posted by: Clark Boggart at May 3, 2006 05:34 PM