Letters to the Editor
Malusinka
Published Letters: 432 Editor's Choice: 60
-
People do have late term abortions for the wrong reasons
[Read the article: Obama and late-term abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There was a famous case in England where a pastor (who had been born with a facial deformity, corrected and was a very attractive woman) protested over 3rd term abortions allowed under medical reasons when the reason was a hare lip or cleft palate -- easily repairable deformities.
Further, not so long ago, BS had a post moaning about the difficulty of getting a third term abortion. The woman featured had not been able to get an abortion earlier (as she crossed into second trimester, the price went up beyond her means and it took a while to get charity). I imagine there are plenty of women who through disorganization, lack of means, unawareness of their pregnancies make it to the third trimester with a pregnancy they don't want to keep.
The sad fact is that there will always be people in the world who do things that the rest of us think are wrong.
-
Bad Religion
[Read the article: PSAs in your panties?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've got it wrong. Imperialism has little to do with superstition. Education is what counter acts superstition. It also helps eliminate poverty.
Second, removing women's sexual enjoyment prevents women from exercising choice in their relationships. A woman, married to a man that she neither loves nor desires, is much less likely to have an extra-marital affair if she finds sex miserable and only participates because it is a duty.
Cultural values that make women the property of their family's men were not imported with imperialism. If anything, the European cultures have discouraged or forbidden practices such as FGM, suttee, and female infanticide.
-
Unless you are going to learn a lot of languages
[Read the article: One nation, not just speaking English]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Europe you will probably be speaking English, which is what Swedes in France so, what Czechs in Spain do, what Germans in Italy do.
-
Stet
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What globalecon is pointing out is that from 2000 to 2005 the percentage of total tax paid paid by the rich has gone up, despite the Bush tax cuts. But, all we ever hear about is how this benefited the rich.
Anyone who supports tax increases on the rich should study the IRS data and explain how it is that the rich now pay a higher percentage of all taxes paid relative to all income earned.
Look at the data and understand it, don't just fall for facile comparisons and the easy soak the rich rhetoric.
-
Stet
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to the Treasury Dept data of Oct 2007, the richest 1% in 2000 earned 21% of income and paid 37% of taxes. In 2005, they earned 21% of income and paid 39% of taxes. In the same time period, the richest 5%'s share of income rose one percentage point, from 35% to 36% and their share of taxes paid rose from 56% to 60%.
By contrast, in 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes. Now with a lot lower rate, they pay 35% of all income taxes.
My point is that soaking the rich makes a lot of people happy, but it doesn't increase tax revenues. The first thing a tax plan has to be in economically sound based on the existing data.
The top 10% of earners pay a whopping 70% of all income taxes. The rich have a lot more ability to shift assets and income into tax shelters use the disgracefully huge number of deductibles in our disaster of a tax code. Anyone changing the tax rates has to take this into account, because if increasing the tax rate lowers the percentage of taxes paid by the top 10%, then the other 90% will be paying more.
-
Stet
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't put a number on what is fair, but I believe when you get a fair number, you will maximize revenue. And you reach that number by carefully studying the data, not listening to popular opinion.
The tax code is the means to further social goals or remedy perceived social ills (growing inequality).
-
sorry Typo!
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do NOT believe that the tax code should be used to remedy perceived social problems. First, tacking stuff on to the tax code ends up with a massively complex tax code that no one understands, unless you hire financial experts and only the rich do that, so in the end, you are giving another advantage to the rich.
Second, the tax code is not the cause of inequality and using it instead of exploring the cause is not effective. You only end up causing economic inefficiency.
Lastly, I don't see that inequality is a problem. That the poorest have an adequate standard of living is important. That the average are comfortable is important. How the rich live isn't.
-
Bohica
[Read the article: Obama and late-term abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please tell me: when is a woman's right to choose overtaken by the rights of the fetus? Never? If so, could I have chosen to abort my baby (by dismemberment) the day before she was born alive and healthy? Could I have chosen to abort her at 24 weeks when she might have been born alive, but with life-long health problems and mental retardation?
I'd like to know your values.
-
My point was:
[Read the article: John McCain's radical tax plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that raising the tax rate on the rich has a very good chance of NOT raising tax revenue. That is my criticism of the tax plan.
I do not accuse Obama of class warfare, but I do think the tone of some of the posts in Salon have been very anti-rich.
I support Obama because, in general, he does more thinking about the issues than the average politician and understands the nuances of the issues, like the idea that an increase in the tax rate may not directly lead to an increase in tax revenue. So, what I read of his tax plan was dismaying.
-
Jared Diamond's view
[Read the article: Dumb luck, China, and the Industrial Revolution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]was that by being a unified country with a single government, China suffered from the choice not to develop. Europe, under a large number of governments, competed. Any country who looked inward was left behind and had to catch up.
Which echoes Hayek's view that the way to development and progress is a large number of experiments, not a centrally planned system.