Letters to the Editor - Aug. 25, 2012

Jack,

I think a wider perspective is in order....think Burger King for instance..12,500 locations in 80 countries..revenue in the high millions(billions maybe)....an increase in taxes would not necessarilly mean an increase in price.

Another example is Chevron....huge profits, with extremely generous tax treatment by the IRS....an increase in their corporate tax rate would have a minor impact on their bottom line. There are hundreds more examples.....

Why shouldn't big business kick in and help reduce the national debt?

Okay now I've gotten to the point where I don't even read the letters, I just zoom right down to the comments first... I guess I either have to read this stuff or come back later : (

Hacksaw why dont we elect people that cuts spending to help reduce the national debt? To me that is the better question. It is not a matter of not collecting enough, It is a matter of spending way to much.

I don't disagree, but additional revenue is necessary for any real attempt to reduce the national debt. Reduced spending sounds great but historically congress has been unwilling to make tough decisions because they might be politically unpopular. Changes to entitlement spending is needed, defense budgets must be cut, but there is also a fragile economy to work around, budget cuts also mean reduced jobs. The first and in my opinion the most important action is to streamline and simplify the tax code. (I'll believe it when I see it)

Until congress can learn how to compromise,major issues facing the country will be impossible to overcome. Congress needs term limits, Congress should never be a career choice. We talk about medicare being unsustainable....how about lifetime pension/ benefits for everyone that has served in congress.....how is that not on the chopping block? Most of these guys are already millionaires.

I do agree with most of your last post hacksaw I just disagree with giving them more money because if they get more the cuts will never happen.

Yes they should not be career politicians, to me that has hurt us greatly and I do not think that is what the founders had in mine. A citizen legislature.

I also think a flat tax would be simple and what we need. Also our reps should not get a lifetime pension. To bad we could not force them to get no pay until they solve the problems they caused.

It is said when I can not remember when I have been able to vote for anyone except the lessor of 2 evils.

If budget cuts mean less jobs that means less jobs in the government not private sector. The feds have grown way to big and way to invasive. Shut down the tsa, The federal eduction department and the list goes on. They are into things the states should be doing.

oh and hacksaw if you ran a business no matter how large or small and your expenses went up would not that mean you either raise prices or lay off people? I ran a business and that is exactly what I did or not give raises for a while. It is not a winning idea.

Well not exactly...as I posted above, a tax hike for mega companies (Chevron etc) would not necessarily warrent a price increase to the customer or workforce layoffs. These companies are currently making millions to billions in profit.

While it's true that federal budget cuts will eliminate federal jobs, those cuts will also impact the private sector by reduced demand which forces private sector layoffs....those federal workers will no longer be buying goods and services from the private sector.

The key to growth and our path out of recession is increased demand from the middle class...employers hire when demand is increased not when taxes are increased or decreased.