In a free market, big corporations should pay a tax
Published November 10, 2003
Re: Business-friendly laws bring in more revenue and other letters, Nov. 5.
The governor was very quick to express a negative reaction to the Times editorial Unfair share, which followed the recent analysis Loophole Inc. This analysis informed citizens of the lack of corporate taxation in the state of Florida for giant corporations such as Carnival Cruise Lines and the tax dodges such corporations use to avoid taxes.
The governor seems to be upset when the public is informed properly so that citizens can draw their own conclusions.
Sure corporations can attempt to pass cost increases, whether for taxes, materials or labor, on to the general public through price increases. However, as any economics student knows, what stops them in our system is the free market. It's called competition, governor, and as long as monopolies do not control specific segments of our economy, which, last time I looked, was against the law with very few exceptions, such competition will dictate that some companies determine that market share can be maintained or even increased by absorbing additional costs, and finding other ways to compensate by increasing productivity and sales volume and/or through other operational efficiencies. This, in fact, can lead to lower costs for consumers, as it did for many products after environmental regulations were instituted in the 1970s, despite the prophecies from opponents that prices would increase due to those regulations.
And yes, if a little belt tightening on the executive corporate level is necessary to keep costs down, and we will no longer be treated to the spectacle of giant birthday parties in foreign countries for CEO wives or other outrageous executive perks, that's long overdue.
Corporations do not exist as welfare recipients under a free enterprise system. That's, in fact, the totalitarian model, where "in favor" companies get perk after perk and contract after contract from the leaders they are in bed with, leaders who control the economy as well as the political system.
If you believe in a free market, there is no room for this outrageous kind of welfare for corporations. In Florida, individuals and small companies bear the brunt of the tax burden. Where are the governor's protests when localities propose raising, for example, gas taxes, or companies are allowed to raise phone rates, or insurance costs for homeowners and small property owners are going through the roof? Instead, he concentrates on protecting big corporations that just happen to be big political contributors employing top lobbyists.
Wouldn't it be fairer to place some of this burden on corporations that secure as much as a billion dollars in profits, on the books, operating in our state? Under a free market system, giant corporations must pay their fair share. Teddy Roosevelt, one of our greatest presidents, and a Republican, figured it out in 1900.
So, what kind of economic system do you want to live under?
I'm glad to read that so many people were able to boost our economy with their great "big" tax cut. Isn't it obvious that in August there was a huge amount of spending that was caused by the purchase of school supplies and clothes?
I would like to have had a tax cut to help the economy, but unfortunately my part was only peanuts compared to that of others who have claimed that their tax cuts were large enough to create a big difference in the economy. I think I'll run out and buy a new SUV with my part!
To say that President Bush is doing a terrific job is ludicrous. Anyone who thinks this way had his head buried in the sand. Four more years of him and the deficit will be so high that we will never get out of debt. R.B. Bogach, Tampa
-- Middle class at risk
The great American rip-offs would best depict the times we live in. With the monetary increases we are facing in the insurance, pharmaceutical, phone, health care and the cable industries, the middle class in this great country of ours gradually will be done away with.
On top of all the above, our legislators along with the administration in Washington, are slowly eliminating all the social and economic safety nets we have taken for granted for the last two to three generations. There is only one way to try and put a stop to all this. There is a big election coming up next year. Instead of succumbing to the campaign nonsense, appealing to our emotions instead of our good sense, we must let those in power know that our best interests are at stake here and we will not stand for it any longer.
-- Jack Levine, Palm Harbor
Beware of the AgJobs bill
Re: To better aid farm workers, Nov. 2.
The letter from Carl B. Loop Jr. of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation advocating the passage of the AgJobs bill should be taken with a great deal of skepticism. To his credit, Loop did identify himself as representing a special interest, Florida growers. Let's remember that these are big businesses trying to maximize their profits. That's fine. But it's not fine to ignore or abandon thousands of American workers and replace them with cheap labor immigrants when millions of Americans are unemployed and willing to work for a decent wage.
This AgJobs bill will benefit employers who are abandoning American workers. It will cause Americans to lose jobs, drive wages and benefits down and cause increases in population when we are seriously overcrowded in schools, hospitals, traffic, etc., and overextended in our natural resources (for example, we have to import 58 percent of our oil).
The AgJobs bill and other pro-immigration legislation should be defeated.
-- Bob Follett, St. Petersburg
Who's accountable for WorldCom mess?
Re: WorldCom nears rebirth as MCI, Nov. 1.
WorldCom's so-called $11-billion "scandal" is the understatement of the year. If Martha Stewart sold a few shares on a tip from her stockbroker (which I don't believe she did), comparing that so-called crime to this situation is like comparing a germ to a bull elephant.
Is it possible to blow away $11-billion without some kind of conspiracy or dereliction of fiscal responsibility of a parent company or that company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chairman, board members or its oversight committee? Where are the regulators and Justice Department for the people who made this mess?
To compound the crime, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez agreed to a $35-billion debt wipe-out, which undoubtedly devastated many companies and investors. MCI emerges virtually debt-free and prepares to trade more new shares. It will be a cold day in the area down below when this investor buys into that.
-- Alva (Al) Brown, St. Petersburg
The afterschool funding crunch
When it comes to afterschool programs, there's a growing gap between what the public wants and what our elected representatives are delivering. That's one of the most important findings of a new poll on Americans' views on afterschool programming, conducted for the Afterschool Alliance and released the last week of October.
According to the poll, four in five Americans describe afterschool care as a "necessity" in their communities, but just three in 10 think there are enough programs for children and teens in the nation today. A majority even say they'd be willing to pay an additional $100 in state taxes to fund more programs.
Given that level of support, it's maddening that afterschool budgets are shrinking, not growing. The result of the funding crunch: Some programs are cutting back their services, others are closing down altogether. That's not what voters want, and it's not what kids, our families and our communities need.
-- Debra Ballinger, Afterschool Ambassador for the Afterschool Alliance, R'Club Child Care, Inc., St. Petersburg
Selby's shame
Re: A whiff of scandal, Nov. 2.
Shame on you, Selby Botanical Gardens staff. You should not encourage the behavior of people like Michael Kovach. And now it seems that you are all finger-pointing and blaming each other for what happened.
Can you not even be adult enough to admit you messed up royally by accepting that orchid without proper permits?
To Mr. Kovach, I beg to differ with your comment that "The bottom line is, it's just a flower." No, sir, it was not, and you should not have smuggled it into the country in your suitcase. Are you one of those people who thinks laws are made for everyone but you? You say your life is ruined. Well, whose fault is that?
Lastly, I must say that Lee Moore appears to be just as guilty. How many times has he brought back "just a flower" from other countries?
-- Rita Grant, Brooksville
Goodman is making this list
Re: Snubbed by the NRA? Sign up here, by Ellen Goodman, Oct. 30.
I am the NRA. If Ellen Goodman would like to be on a list, she should not feel excluded. She is on mine. I keep her on a list of people whom I don't want to be in charge of my constitutional rights.
Most of the people on my list are Democrats who would like to control my thinking, my wallet and my right to chose whether I can or cannot defend myself - people like Sens. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein. Not to be excluded are such luminaries as Dustin Hoffman, Michael Moore, the fabulous Baldwin brothers of Canada, and other actors who would deprive me of my right to self-defense.
The NRA isn't about "assault weapons," it's about the freedom to choose. Since 1968, there has been an "assault" on our rights to keep and bear arms. Each year, more and more laws are passed to "protect the children," "close the loopholes," "keep the criminals from getting guns," and now to keep the "terrorists" from buying WMDs at gun shows. None of these laws have done anything to stop crime, or protect children, or stop terrorists from buying guns in Iraq. They are designed to keep law-abiding citizens, like me and others from buying guns. It's being done one step at a time: Stop one gun this time, and ban one more next year, and one more the year after, until there aren't any more to ban.
-- Don Dickson, St. Petersburg
Sending a strong message
Thank you for publishing the powerful commentary by cartoonist Michael Ramirez (St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 27) concerning the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. This, with the article on 3D sonograms (in that same issue), sends a strong message. Thank you, again.
-- Patricia Porterfield, St. Petersburg
Or perhaps too strong
Re: Michael Ramirez's Oct. 27 cartoon.
Do you really think the majority of your readers who purchase the paper do in fact want to see his drawing and commentary while beginning their day and having their morning coffee? Wouldn't a bit of humor be a whole lot more appropriate? His cartoon was bordering on being disgustingly offensive.
-- Lois Bircher, Clearwater
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
