Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · The tax hike that...
. . . .

The tax hike that isn‘t

Stephen Tuttle - September 20th, 2010
The tax hike that isn’t
It seems we’re going to be whacked with a staggering $3.8 trillion tax
hike. At least that’s what the leaders of the Republican party keep
telling us. And what possible reason could they have for wanting to
deceive us less than seven weeks before the national mid-term
elections?
While the accusation makes for excellent headlines and campaign
fodder, it is provably untrue.
This all started back during the Bush Administration when a series of
income tax cuts were passed into law. They were not permanent cuts,
just temporary attempts at some stimulus for a moribund economy. They
expire in December.
The idea was the extra money in the pockets of Americans would
increase spending and investing, giving the economy a nice kick in the
pants. The very rich were expected to buy big-ticket items like new
homes, cars and, one supposes, yachts and planes. That’s why rich
folks received the biggest tax breaks. The consumer economy would
start humming right along and all would be right with the world.
At least this is the way “supply side” economics is supposed to work –
rich folks spend and the benefits of that spending trickle down on us
little people. The same impact is supposed to result from tax cuts
and tax breaks for large corporations; they will use the new money to
invest in new enterprises, expand their current operations, purchase
new equipment and hire new employees or, at the very least, re-hire
those who have been laid off.
Unfortunately, there’s never been anything that proved supply side
economics to be much more than the cocktail napkin fantasy of creator
Arthur Laffer and his acolytes in the Reagan and Bush administrations.
What actually happened after the Bush tax cuts was almost nothing; an
orgy of non-spending by everyone, including wealthy individuals and
big corporations. People of all income levels pulled spending back by
necessity and choice.
It’s regrettable the very wealthy did not go on spending sprees
because they were certainly capable of doing so. The top 1% – the
financial elite – saw their incomes increase a whopping 150% during
this recession and they now control a staggering 23% of the country’s
wealth. They got richer but did not spend a lot more.
(It’s no different at the corporate level where corporate income tax
cuts produced none of the anticipated benefits. Most companies have
not expanded or made new capital investments or hired much of anyone.
In fact, America’s biggest corporations are now awash in cash, as much
as $2 trillion in cash reserves according to some experts. They are
awaiting the right moment to invest, expand and hire. At least that’s
what we’re told.)
Which brings us to the Obama non-tax-hike. Having already reduced
federal income taxes for most of us, Obama wants to maintain the Bush
tax cuts for everyone but those near or at the top of the economic
food chain. So, if your income is less than $200,000 a year ($250,000
per household), your taxes will stay the same. For those top income
earners, the Bush tax cut will be allowed to expire, as it was
intended to do in the first place.
Our friends in the GOP have decided to tell us the tax cuts for all
income levels will be allowed to expire. That’s where they come up
with the $3.8 trillion. The problem is no one – not President Obama,
not the Democrat leadership, not anyone in the Obama Administration,
no one – has ever suggested eliminating the tax breaks for middle and
low income earners.
Taxing the super-rich, most of whom will find a way around the
increases, is a favorite campaign strategy of Democrats because it
doesn’t impact the overwhelming majority of us. Making the claim
we’re all going to be taxed is a favorite campaign strategy of the
Republicans because it makes voters angry. The hyperbolic nonsense on
both sides has added nothing but confusion to the debate.
You can argue, as many are, that allowing any of these tax cuts for
any level of income to expire is a mistake that will further slow
economic recovery. Others claim the increase in tax revenues would
help reduce the ridiculous annual deficits and that would help the
economy. Both arguments come with the requisite number of competing
experts. So far, there is little evidence the tax cuts did much to
stimulate the economy and ample evidence they added to the deficits.
If a different approach would have worked better is a legitimate and
important debate.
What cannot legitimately be debated is that Obama or the Democrats
have suggested the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire on any
household making less than $250,000 a year. It simply isn’t true.
For about 95% of us there will be no change at all under the Obama
proposal. (If you’re a small business owner, additional tax breaks
are headed your way under another Obama proposal he “borrowed” from
the Republicans.)
We all expect exaggeration and some foolishness during the election
season. Who among us doesn’t enjoy those delightful campaign
commercials? However, the accusation that President Obama wants to
raise everybody’s taxes is a canard that fouls the legitimate debate
on taxes and confirms the cynicism too many voters already have about
politics and politicians.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close