Addressing taxes
To the editor:
I watched Richard Dreyfuss say this morning that he would support a 90 percent tax rate on the higher earners. At first that may seem like a good idea. Especially if you are not included in that tax bracket.
But, is there perhaps an alternative tax method than giving this money to the government whom we all recognize as being a very thrifty institution?
Consider first, if you were taxed at such a high rate what would be your incentive to make more money only to have to fork it over to the government? What would this do for the average person? His incentive would be to seek out a way to tap into all this new money that will fund even more government giveaway programs. Not good!
Would it perhaps be better to have those at the higher tax rate instead have the option of paying the 90 percent rate or investing in a job creating area? With a job availability increased, more average people would work, and this would provide more money in a tax structure across the whole spectrum. As a corollary, the government handout programs would have to be addressed in such a fashion as to make them finite in pay out, either by total amount of by a time frame. Welfare should not be a “forever” lifestyle.
The present governmental approach is broken; it has helped to limit job creation and has driven down wages and in its place created a non-responsible population.
We once, as a nation, valued work, education and personal responsibility.
Where did it go?
There must be a better answer.
Joseph L. Kibitlewski
Cape Coral