Letters to the Editor

Tax support

March 16, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

I can understand people’s objection to abortion on religious or moral grounds, and I understand the rationale for not using any of their tax monies or other of their funds to support abortion or, indeed, contraception. I would accept this more easily if we also would prohibit the use of tax dollars to support other governmental activities that are unacceptable to other people as matters of faith or conscience.

For example:

  • no more public funds for killing people in foreign lands.
  • l no more desecration of natural spaces such as the Wakarusa wetlands.
  • l no more jailing of huge numbers of mostly young men of color for selling or possessing  chemicals  comparable in public risk to others that are legal.
  • l no more tinkering with the tax system in order to favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
  • l no more subsidies for oil companies while gasoline prices soar.
  • l no more support for a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons.
  • l no more limitation of access to voting to prevent largely nonexistent voter fraud.
  • l no more support for industries that pollute, such as coal-fired plants, the Keystone XL pipeline and oil sands devastation rather than serious efforts at conservation.

I do understand these are complicated issues, not purely black and white, but it does seem the “conservative” political agenda espouses the abortion issue while rejecting these and other comparable issues.

Please consider this in what passes for political debate this year.

Comments

Abdu Omar 3 years, 2 months ago

Nicely said, thank you!!!

I think, however, we should add one more tort to that:

No more funds for our supposed friends who want to take us into another war.

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

Interesting list. May I expand? I would appreciate being excused from paying for the following

Open ended unemployment and other social benefits to people who can work

Open ended payments to people who have children and can not afford them

Excessive remuneration to unionized public employees

Social Policy embedded in my utilities and other purchases

Tax policy where half pay no income tax

Policies that punish work and reward sloth

Graduated tax system that isn’t

Recidivism

The consequence of repeated stupid personal decisions like those that get people institutionalized for hurting others to support their chemical dependency

Preferential treatment for the 1%

And on and on

Perhaps we all pay a little for what others want and maybe we are just grumping about further expanding the list.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 2 months ago

Combine your comment with that of the letter writer and you'll have the full support of our resident ultra-libertarian, Liberty_One.

parrothead8 3 years, 2 months ago

You forget that you're not the only one paying into benefits for the unemployed...they did too, most of them for decades. If you ever become unemployed, will you promise to refuse the government benefits that you've paid into for years?

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

Nice speech but I said no such thing

"Open ended unemployment and other social benefits to people who can work"

Are you arguing that because they paid into the system - if they actually did as only half pay federal income taxes and the employer pays at the state level - they get to sit around for two years before getting serious about employment?.

I have no problem with helping people over the hump

parrothead8 3 years, 2 months ago

Are you arguing that most people on unemployment "sit around for two years before getting serious about employment?" If so, I suggest you do some research, because the numbers prove you wrong. Over half of all people on unemployment find jobs within six months, and over 75% within 12 months.

And don't give me the BS about "only half pay federal income taxes," because that's one of those myths spouted by the far right that's been proven untrue. EVERY legal resident pays federal income taxes, it's just that we have so many who make so little that something as small as the standard deduction wipes out their tax bill. Do you want to try living on that level of income and see how easy it is? I'm much more concerned about billionaires and corporations who find loopholes that allow them to pay little to no income taxes.

And don't even try to convince me that those billionaires and corporations are "job creators," because if they were, we wouldn't have so many people needing your so-called "open ended unemployment."

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

This is the fundamental problem - we all have a different list.

A friend of mine once suggested that we should be able to specify on our tax return which programs we want our money to go towards - an interesting, if perhaps unworkable idea.

I'd be interested to know what changes would result in government spending if this were done - maybe a computer whiz could run some sort of simulation?

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

My point exactly. Before we add to the lists we need to make sure we can afford the adds!

Matthew Herbert 3 years, 2 months ago

How about charging property taxes on churches. If we're going to let them control public policy they ought to pay in like every other business interest

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

Well R that sounds like a bit of hyperbole. Just exactly how are churches controlling public policy?? They supported the AFCA but want to be exempted (themselves not everyone) from certain provisions that are inconsistent with their beliefs. Sounds like the good old American tradition in avoiding the impact of legislation. In this case a tradition with constitutional underpinnings that goes back 200 years.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 2 months ago

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY is at risk?

There are no fiscal conservative republicans running for president because the RINO/CINO money sources will neither support nor fund fiscal conservative socially responsible government thinkers.

This ain't pretty in fact it looks to be the RINO economic policy written in stone = allowing reckless management of financial institutions then having taxpayers bailout the billionaires. When a party repeats itself what else is there left to think considering the past 3 repub presidents have participated in economic destruction of a magnitude beyond reality.

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY is at risk?

Take a look at the long documented history of economic destruction which cost taxpayers trillions of $$$ and a combined effort equaling 20 million lost jobs.

How many more times should voters screw themselves,lose their homes and lose their retirement plans?

These same players are wanting to steal trillions of Social Security Insurance dollars.

Republicans cost the nation too much money! Let's not get duped again!!!!

Richard Heckler 3 years, 2 months ago

Republicans cost the nation too much money! Let's not get duped again!!!!

According to what I was reading:

Republicans were in control when the economy crashed in 1929 which took 24 years to bounce back in the year 1953. It all happened under the umbrella of deregulation and reckless wild speculation with the people's money. Such as lending people money to play Wall Street and making loans such that took place during the Bush/Cheney years.

Where was so much money coming from to fuel this reckless use of money? From the Federal Reserve and and citizens money they were depositing in the banks.

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY is at risk?

Back in 1929 like now the bankers and federal reserve did not give a damn for they knew the taxpayers would be forced to bail out this basically criminal activity. All under the republican umbrella.

Americans it is time to demand that the big banks be busted up and the Federal Reserve be taken out of "private" hands! Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY is at risk?

Republicans cost the nation too much money!

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

parrothead8 (anonymous) replies…

Are you arguing that most people on unemployment "sit around for two years before getting serious about

Moderate Responds: Boy have you been drinking deep from the chalice of “goodness”"

Half pay no federal income taxes – period. If you want to justify that so be it. I find defining the poor as half of society just a bit much. How can you justify putting the full burden of the federal government on the upper half of the middle class. What did they do to deserve such punishment? WE all know the rich pay little and probably always will.

25% use the full unemployment period. 50% suck a year. You also missed the statistic that between 25 and 50% fall back within a few years. As I wrote I have no problem with those who need help. I have every problem with those that exploit our help. 25% is a lot of money ($25-50 Billion per year) – money better spent on other things ranging from personal choice to research to education. I want people back at work and I am willing to have a more forceful system to make it happen

I love corporations too. Of course most Americans do not work for big corporations they work for small business. So why drag in corporations?? Running out of talking points that are on point?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.