Fair / 66° F
Flat tax not the answer for poor people [UPDATED]
Published 9:38am Wednesday, September 26, 2012 Updated 11:40am Wednesday, September 26, 2012Mr. Austin Culp (Daily Journal, page 4, Sept. 16) advocates a single flat tax rate with no deductions allowed for any of us so that the wage earner attempting to live on a minimum wage job would be required to pay the same percentage of the few dollars he earns as a millionaire taxpayer pays even if this could mean that the person might become homeless as a result, possibly have to go without food, clothing or medical care or be unable to provide any dependents the person might have with the necessities of life.
The American people have recognized that the first duty of each of us is to take care of our selves and our families.
Our tax code allows those deductions to insure that we inflict harm on no one by our taxing. I am open to a discussion on the size of deductions but totally opposed to any program that could become penal to some people like a flat tax would.
I notice Mr. Culp makes no reference to those wealthy individuals who escape taxation by stashing money in Swiss Bank accounts or in the Cayman Islands.
I am a strong advocate of total separation of church and state. In this month when we remember the 9/11 deed by those people who flew their airplane into the tower believing they were serving God, I hesitate to cite Jesus. However, a majority of us claim to be Christians. According to Luke 12, 48, Jesus taught “When a man has been given much, much will be expected of him.” [NEB} Makes a lot of sense to me and I believe will also to most others even if you are one of those Americans who today have given up on all religious belief (about 1 in 5 of us according to a recent Pew survey.)
Romney should agree as he served as a top leader in his church in Massachusetts where he was President of the Boston stake, a position similar to that of a Catholic diocese, from 1986 to 1994.
Earlier he had held a position similar to that of a lay pastor in Belmont and Cambridge. (Christian Century, Aug. 22, page 17).
Arthur J. L. Meether
Fergus Falls
I usually agree with Mr. Meether totally and completely. This time, however, let me add a little bit of history. Our tax code not only varies to “insure we inflict no harm” but to promote specific parts of the economy for the benefit of others and to restrict (make expensive) buying behaviors that might be harmful to society as a whole. We allow oil companies to avoid part of their taxes so they will continue to pump crude from wells otherwise no longer profitable (at least not at crude prices below $80 a barrel). We give tax incentives for companies to buy jet aircraft for their corporate executives for this creates jobs within the private jet engine segment of the economy. We give mortgage interest tax deductions so people can afford to buy homes which causes more homes to be built and that is good for not just construction workers but bankers and insurance companies among many others.
And maybe most importantly, we tax investment income at a lower rate to encourage investment in our economy for the benefit of all of us. But, there are some who use the profits from their American investments to put money in Swiss bank accounts or store their income in the Caymans or in holding companies in Bermuda. If we are going to modify the tax code maybe we should first concentrate at those tax deductions which don’t yield the result for which they were intended. (And yes, that means start at the top investment earners who don’t believe enough in America to invest in it.)