Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Hard-working people shouldn't have their estates pillaged

Re: The Paris Hilton Benefit Act, April 13.

E.J. Dionne's column advocates the defeat of the effort in Congress to make the 2010 repeal of the death tax permanent. He states that this effort is a metaphor for granting relief to Paris Hilton.

He doesn't mention the hard-working people who have built their estates on diligence, prudent management and personal sacrifice so they can leave a material legacy to their family members rather than to the federal government, which has up until recently appropriated 55 percent of their private property to fund social programs administered by incompetent bureaucrats and subjected to the usual corruption and graft inherent in government programs.

Dionne's philosophical perspective compels him to conclude that the death tax is but, "a minor inconvenience to those who plan to live on their parents' wealth." Contrary to Dionne's perception, in truth there is a maxim that people are the architects of their own destiny. Individuals who work and save their earnings, and pay confiscatory taxes during their lifetimes, have the right to expect that, upon death, their wealth should descend to their progeny rather than to create a fund for the convenience of some politician to promote his or her incumbency by giving it away to strangers.

Does Dionne believe that the people who earn and accumulate wealth are unworthy of making the personal decision to pass it along to their heirs? If Dionne wishes to give his estate to the federal government, he should make an appointment with his attorney to include such a provision in his last will and testament.

For fairness in the tax code

Re: The repeal of the estate tax and the marriage penalties on income tax.

As I prepare to send the IRS a payment with my tax return, I am appalled that the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the estate tax while continuing to burden families with an unfair proportion of income taxes year after year. The estate tax is a one-time tax on the wealthiest families while the marriage penalties on the annual income tax continue year after year.

My husband I are both hard-working professionals with two small children in day care. Our combined income this year provides a comfortable lifestyle, but we are by no means the wealthiest of the population. In the event of our demise, we do not have sufficient assets to pay any "death tax" as George Bush likes to call it. Our tax burden for 2004 is $3,931 greater as married filers than it would be as two combined single filers. That may not be a significant sum to those who might pay estate taxes after they are dead, but that money means a lot to us.

We all need to contact our members of Congress if we want to stop the charity to the wealthiest and make the tax code more fair to all of us.

Questionable and costly punishment

It's hard to pay taxes on April 15 when you know that your hard-earned money is being wasted. I question the $23,181 spent every year to incarcerate each federal prisoner. As Martha Stewart has learned, prisons are full of first-time, nonviolent people serving harsh mandatory prison sentences. That's why I and other members of Families Against Mandatory Minimums will be handing out literature to taxpayers mailing in their tax forms today.

Fifty-five percent of federal prisoners serve mandatory minimum drug sentences, which are determined solely by the weight and type of drug or the presence of a firearm during the crime. Nearly 88 percent are nonviolent offenders, and a majority are drug abusers. Yet five-, 10-, and 20-year sentences are commonplace.

Crime should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime. But with mandatory minimum sentences, the punishment far exceeds the crime. Judges are prevented from considering the severity of the offense, the offender's role and the potential for rehabilitation.

There are better and less expensive ways to deal with the drug problem. We need to change our laws so that the punishment fits the crime and our tax monies are spent more cost-effectively.

Consider the ordinary taxpayers

Re: $2.2-billion tax windfall.

I am finding it hard to comprehend the way our Legislature is trying to spend this $2.2-billion in new revenue. Your Tuesday edition clearly laid out where the additional funds came from: sales taxes, mostly hurricane-related expenses; the documentary stamp tax, which we all pay when we chose to move; service charges; and the intangibles tax. Now in the Wednesday edition I see the Senate growth plan is to raise local taxes.

I can't believe it. Here we are giving away hundreds of millions of dollars for corporate welfare with no oversight and end up paying for health care for the employees of these companies. If a major company wants to set up shop here why should Florida taxpayers foot the bill and get no guarantees?

I am still looking for some relief in my taxes. How about a higher homestead exemption? With the ever-increasing cost of fuel maybe we could have a gas tax holiday once a month.

Lawmakers should wake up and help the people who elected them and who pay their wages.

Going down the wrong road

Re: Bush wants $9.2-billion for roads, April 13.

Once again, Gov. Jeb Bush pandered to developers and overlooked the actual citizens of Florida when he proposed legislation that will deceptively "aid" Florida's progress the next few years.

Spending $9.2-billion for roads - that's very impressive. Impressive in that it does nothing to help alleviate congestion and automobile use. Does nothing to propagate the use of mass transit and improve Florida's most congested counties. It also opens the way for more land throughout the state to be turned over to developers.

Jeb Bush wants to spend $9.2-billion for roads while he didn't want to pay a for a bullet train, and while he balks at spending enough to reduce school class sizes.

And yet he's more than willing to help the construction lobby out at every turn.

A good use for some of that money

I suggest we take part of this $2.2-billion surplus and pay the medical malpractice judgment for Minouche Noel, who has to live her life in a wheelchair because of a state doctor.

There is no reason in the world this young girl should have to live, dragging herself in the morning to bathroom because her wheelchair is old and needs to be replaced. And having to sit at the curb waiting for someone to push her up her gravel driveway is outright dangerous. Aren't we looking for another missing girl who is assumed to have been a victim of a sexual predator?

Tallahassee, get your heads out of the sand. I know we have lot of it in Florida, but it doesn't mean that you keep your heads there!

[Last modified September 15, 2005, 17:10:05]