When KSTP Political Director Tom Hauser asked Gov. Dayton about Gov. Dayton’s tax increase proposal, Gov. Dayton reflexively regurgitated the ABM/DFL Chanting Point that the rich weren’t paying their fair share. It isn’t acceptable any more to have the fascists within the DFL and ABM to define fair share. It’s time to challenge their chanting points on this.

First, it’s insulting to think that the DFL thinks some members of the MAPE or AFSCME are paying their fair share. They’re sucking taxes from productive members of the private sector. In far too many instances, these people are political cronies of high-ranking officials at a university or department commissioner or do-nothing council. They often are put in do-nothing jobs like PR director of a tiny office that nobody’s heard of before. Sometimes they’re hired to be a “legislative liaison” in the MPCA or the BCA. Legislative liaison is a euphemism for taxpayer-funded pro-big-government lobbyist.

People in these position frequently draw salaries of $75,000-$150,000 but the DFL thinks that they’re actually contributing something meaningful to Minnesota’s taxpayers. I’m still waiting to hear the DFL’s/ABM’s explanation as to what these millstones contribute to Minnesota’s GDP or competitiveness.

Compare that with entrepreneurs. The first 5-10 years they’re in business, they frequently work from sunrise until midnight, sometimes later. They employ anywhere from 10-40 people if it’s a small business. If it’s a mid-size business like Quad Graphics, they employ 250+ people, all of whom have been offered quality health insurance. With Quad Graphics, the company pays a significant portion of the health insurance premium.

It’s easy to quantify these companies’ contributions towards a fiscally healthy Minnesota.

Next, the ABM/DFL definition of paying their fair share is based solely on the government’s take of these entrepreneurs’ profits. It’s never defined by anything other than contributing to bigger government. The entrepreneurs’ definition of paying their fair share is frequently measured by how families’ lives are improved through lower-priced goods and services, inventions and innovations that make like easier or through improving profits because they’re producing things of value.

If a pollster were to ask which is the more sensible definition of paying their fair share, there’s little question that the people would pick the entrepreneurs’ definition over the ABM/DFL definition of fair share.

One Response to “Fair share: the entrepreneurs’ definition vs. the ABM/DFL definition”

  • walter hanson says:


    I’m remembered one complaint I made to the Star Tribune a couple of years ago when Lou Gelfand was their reader rep. The Tribune put out a poll showing support for a tax increase and they quoted a person who said they were Republican supporting it because the rich should pay their fair share. The person happen to say that a rich person should be paying 25% maximum in taxes.

    I called up and pointed out that the reporter should’ve already caught and talked about how that person pays more then 30% federal taxes, something like 7% state taxes, sales tax, social security taxes, etc.

    Lou Gelfand I gave lots of grief to Star Tribune management because he used his column that week to talk about a dog being rescued.

    The point is during all of this talk in 2012 and 2013 about the rich paying their fair share do you see that talked about the way I just did.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply