Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Arguments against the intangibles tax don't hold up

Re: Time to eliminate the intangibles tax, April 14.

The case made by Tom Gallagher, Florida's chief financial officer, for eliminating the intangibles tax was weak. As taxes go, this one seems reasonably fair and quite simple. The sales tax, the state's major source of revenue, is regressive and full of special-interest-oriented exemptions.

Gallagher's first reason to do away with the intangibles tax is that "the very wealthy actually avoid paying their share." Is he suggesting that wealthy and other people haven't found ways to avoid income and other taxes? If the "wealthy" aren't paying their share, let's fix that. It surely isn't a reason to eliminate the tax.

Next, he drags out the tired argument that it is a double tax because people already paid tax on the money when they earned it. What about real property tax? You pay tax on the value of your home year after year. Isn't that double (or really multiple) taxation? You also pay sales tax with money that's already been taxed, so this argument seems a bit lame.

He says it produces a relatively small amount of revenue. The governor is eager to do away with the tax and has successfully pushed for reducing the rate and tax base over the past several years so, of course, the revenue from it is declining.

Gallagher suggests that people stay away from Florida to avoid this tax. After climate, one of the main reasons people relocate to Florida is low taxes. Does he seriously believe anyone has ever not moved here because of the intangibles tax?

I don't enjoy paying taxes - no one does - but you get what you pay for. The intangibles tax is a perfectly legitimate method of taxation because it falls on those who can most easily pay it.

End this unfair tax

Re: Time to eliminate the intangibles tax.

Tom Gallagher is so right in pointing out the inequities of the intangibles tax. We paid taxes on earned income and now we must pay taxes on the same savings each and every year!

We are not "rich." We just worked very hard, always lived below our means in order to save for our "old age," so we would not be a burden on our children or society. It would be a God-send if this unfair tax is eliminated. Thank you, Tom Gallagher, for speaking out.

Bankruptcy bill will hurt

It is disheartening to see that once again, members of Congress are using stereotypical characterizations to hurt average Americans. For years the right has tried to demonize anyone who made use of government programs, from portraying welfare mothers having babies solely for extra child support to suggesting unemployment funds always go to people who are too lazy to get a job.

Now the same thing has happened again with the new bankruptcy legislation that has passed. Congress is making it seem as though the only people filing for bankruptcy are gamblers, addicted shoppers and often targeted multimillionaire celebrities. In actuality the real victims of this stringent legislation are the working Americans who fall on hard times in an increasingly unstable economy. Instead of helping someone when they are at their lowest, this new legislation does nothing more than make already bad circumstances even worse. All the while Americans are being told that such actions are in their own best interests. When will enough finally be enough?

The place to pin the blame

So now everyone knows that Sen. Mel Martinez is an inept, inexperienced, unprofessional, unethical Washington insider who will do or say anything for personal gain or as requested by the Bush administration, regardless of its effect on Florida.

His character was very evident during the Florida primary and general elections with his wild and unfounded accusations against his opponents (all done by his staff without his knowledge, of course!).

But I don't blame Martinez, who is only doing what most politicians do. I blame the voters of Florida who were dumb enough to elect him to office in the first place.

You can't count on a shaky market

Re: Stock market agony worsens, April 16.

Helen Huntley's report in Saturday's Times is surely the death bell announcing the demise of our president's push for private retirement accounts. Why anyone would opt to place his future in a system so volatile, and so dependent on so many uncertain factors, is beyond my comprehension.

Huntley has, in my opinion, provided your readers with ample reasons for not putting their future into a system rife with the irregularities brought about, "by world politics, energy prices, interest rates inflation, trade deficit, budget deficit and terrorism." The mere capriciousness of global economics should be enough to shy away from President Bush's plan.

The law and the left lane

Re: Driving in the left lane.

The people who represent us in Tallahassee are in the process of passing a law making it illegal to drive in the left lane of highways except to pass. So, if I drive in the left lane at the legal speed limit, I could get arrested because some driver behind me might want to drive above the legal speed limit and wants me to get out of his way.

Does he get arrested too?

Let them learn before being elected

Re: Term limits.

Our legislators admit to being inexperienced when elected and require 12 years of on-the-job training to "outsmart" the lobbyists and keep abreast of staffers. Perhaps they should intern for 12 years on staff, then take a board-certified test to establish their knowledge of the Legislature. After that they can run for office. It seems backward right now.

A shameful cartoon

Re: Pat Oliphant cartoon, April 12 .

I realize that the St. Petersburg Times is an extremely liberal newspaper, but you certainly crossed the line with the anti-Catholic cartoon regarding Cardinal Law.

As a Roman Catholic, I find it abhorrent that a joke was made at the expense of our Sacrament of Confession. Shame on you!

[Last modified April 19, 2005, 01:19:14]