Your View: Letters to the editor (April 16)

There are 7 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Apr 16, 2011, titled Your View: Letters to the editor (April 16). In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

I am a retired wildlife manager/biologist. I worked for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for five years and for the Arizona Game and Fish Department for 28 years.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

OTinCO

Denver, CO

#1 Apr 16, 2011
Mr. O'Connell:

I disagree, since it does not correct the basis of the problem. If everyone was given an equal amount of 'money' and told to use it as they wished, totally equallizing wealth amongst all; within 2 years, the pattern of wealth would return to what it is now, with the poor just as poor, and the wealthy just as wealthy.

By the way, the unemployment and frozen compensations for the middle class is a repeat of the Carter years wage controls, where only the top bureaucrats got 18 percent per year increases, while the lowly workers got nothing. It goes around again, and we will probably be seeing true inflation of 40 to 50 percent again before 2012 ends.

The fact is, we need to introduce a true 'flat tax,' which, above a certain threshold is a fixed percentage of your income, with no exceptions, exemptions or writeoffs. Then cap the maximum sum total (ceiling) of all taxes and fees anyone can be charged to 25 percent of anyone's income; A true cap; with no exemptions or exceptions. Then, when anyone exceeds that amount of payment to any and all taxing/fee collecting bodies, he/she should retain the remainder of what income he/she earns.

That way other people could build wealth, and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Historically, when the income tax was introduced, the proposed maximum which could be charged was 2 percent. Of course, the 'progressives' shot that limit down, because they realized that to do so would limit their ability to prevent any 'common man' from becoming rich, like they were.

History just seems loaded with those who are good at exempting themselves from taxes, while destroying anyone else, by taxation and fee requirements, who might become rich, like they are, without being corrupted by the system.
LC Today

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Apr 16, 2011
Paul O'Connell.....people such as you apparently do not understand that jobs in this country are driven by people who have money.........lots of money. They have large companies, businesses, etc., and they hire lots of people to operate those, they make major investments which generates more business funds, etc.,........therefore, jobs for the working class. Not everyone can be wealthy or wishes to be

Why do you automatically assume because someone wealthy gets a tax break, he or she will run out and buy another yacht, bigger home, etc., etc.? If it bothers you so much that someone is wealthy......why don't you go for it yourself, and build your own wealth base. The opportunities are always there.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#3 Apr 16, 2011
OTinCO wrote:
Mr. O'Connell:
I disagree, since it does not correct the basis of the problem. If everyone was given an equal amount of 'money' and told to use it as they wished, totally equallizing wealth amongst all; within 2 years, the pattern of wealth would return to what it is now, with the poor just as poor, and the wealthy just as wealthy.
By the way, the unemployment and frozen compensations for the middle class is a repeat of the Carter years wage controls, where only the top bureaucrats got 18 percent per year increases, while the lowly workers got nothing. It goes around again, and we will probably be seeing true inflation of 40 to 50 percent again before 2012 ends.
The fact is, we need to introduce a true 'flat tax,' which, above a certain threshold is a fixed percentage of your income, with no exceptions, exemptions or writeoffs. Then cap the maximum sum total (ceiling) of all taxes and fees anyone can be charged to 25 percent of anyone's income; A true cap; with no exemptions or exceptions. Then, when anyone exceeds that amount of payment to any and all taxing/fee collecting bodies, he/she should retain the remainder of what income he/she earns.
That way other people could build wealth, and enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Historically, when the income tax was introduced, the proposed maximum which could be charged was 2 percent. Of course, the 'progressives' shot that limit down, because they realized that to do so would limit their ability to prevent any 'common man' from becoming rich, like they were.
History just seems loaded with those who are good at exempting themselves from taxes, while destroying anyone else, by taxation and fee requirements, who might become rich, like they are, without being corrupted by the system.
Agreed.
Think about it

Albuquerque, NM

#4 Apr 16, 2011
"To add to this ironic situation, the House of Representatives is now proposing a cut in the top tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent - so the wealthy can buy an even larger home or yacht. When is a sense of fairness in distribution of our nation's income going to come into our political dialogue?
PAUL O'CONNELL
Las Cruces"

I get some heart burn about executive pay until I realize that I would not have the ability or the experience to manage a Viacom or Occidental Petroleum. Not many people would, because only a relatively small number of people can do this type of work, the work is highly valued.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from pursuing this type of occupation where you too could be well compensated. But that would be work, lots of work.

Instead you would rather just take money from these people who are doing the work while you watch 'American Idol'.

" When is a sense of fairness in distribution of our nation's income going to come into our political dialogue?"

Our nation doesn't have an 'income' unless you are referring to tax revenue. Since 'the rich' pay the majority of the taxes and the 'poor' receive most of the tax revenue out lay, then I'd say there is an unfair distribution of the tax revenue. We have taken money from those who can and given it to those who can't or won't.

The Debt Commission suggested a top tax rate of 22%. This includes removing a substantial amount of deductions. Under this plan the majority of us would pay a 15% tax rate and the lowest would be 8%. Everyone would pay income taxes.

Currently the bottom 47% of income earners pay no income tax. Many get tax credits. If 47% of income earners do not pay taxes then that means that the remaining 53% are paying all the taxes. That does appear to be out of balance and as you say 'unfair'.

To be perfectly clear, I am speaking of income taxes. Not payroll taxes or sales taxes, income taxes.

I'd like to see the Debt Commission's recommendations put into effect. It would mean a loss of deductions for the majority of us who do pay taxes, it would also mean a lower tax rate that could not be mitigated by those lost deductions.

If the Debt Commission is correct, their recommendations would result in more tax revenues by eliminating tax shelters.

I'm willing to give up my deductions for a lower tax rate and a 'fair tax'. Are you?
clark

Phoenix, AZ

#5 Apr 16, 2011
To the individual who states the House is proposing to cut the top tax rate to 25%, tell the whole story. They are also proposing to eliminate the tax loopholes that in the past have reduced the top income peoples' taxable income. The richest traditionally have benefitted far more from these loopholes than the rest of us, so they will wind up paying more and the rest of us will pay about the same or less. I don't know if you are honestly misinformed or enjoy misingforming others. If you are going to post "facts", they should be complete and unbiased. You may then express your opinion on them.
Right of Center

Las Cruces, NM

#6 Apr 16, 2011
Fair? I work 60+ hours every week and Monday morning, I will be writing a $5000 check payable to the IRS after a large amount was already withheld from my pay. On the flip side, an acquaintance of mine had $1100 withheld, yet received a refund of over $6000. If that's not wealth redistribution, I'm not sure what is.
J from LC

Metairie, LA

#7 Apr 16, 2011
In 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income tax than the bottom 95% combined. In 2008 TOTAL taxable income for all households earning more than 100k, about the top 18%, was a little over $1.5 trillion. Meaning a 100% income tax on 2008 earned income, assuming 100% could be collected which is highly unlikely, would not even cover one half of this years projected budget. The soak the rich mantra sounds great in political sermonizing but in reality governments with expansive welfare programs, such as ours, have to very quickly start reaching down the socioeconomic ladder to pay for spending.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

All Terrain Vehicles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Crocker Pond group seeks solutions to keep ATVs... (Jan '11) Mar '15 Tammy 19
News 5 arrested in ATV bust in NY pine barrens (Apr '09) Nov '14 Sspdiesel 65
Lawnpower2 (Aug '14) Aug '14 Smile 1
Lawnmowerpower (Aug '14) Aug '14 Smile 1
News ATVing 'like a big family' (Aug '14) Aug '14 usual suspects 1
Chineese ATV's (Jul '06) Jul '14 john 47
News Controlling 'mudding' in Hobe Sound (May '14) May '14 Yipee 1
More from around the web