RSS
Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Economics 101
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
More Letters to the Editor
- Happy for what I don't have
- T.L. Hanna band director appreciates support
- Edwards a man of honor, integrity
Rate this Article
At a recent organizational meeting I voluntarily belong to, we were discussing the problem of running low on funds primarily due to some members not having paid their dues.
Several options were discussed to remedy the problem, one of which was to increase the dues amount. This would fix the problem by making responsible, rule-abiding members pay for those who are not paying. This proposal, however, was felt to be a ridiculous measure by those members present and immediately dismissed from further discussion.
The gentleman next to me keenly observed “How interesting that we can sit here and come to the reasonable conclusion that having us pay more to make up for the nonpayers’ deficit is a ludicrous suggestion, and yet we have popular politicians who have that philosophy as the cornerstone of their economic policy for the country.”
Now for your Economics 101 final exam: When government increases the taxes on corporate America, oil companies, your landlord or anyone else who makes a profit, who really ends up paying for the increase in the cost of doing business?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t fix the underlying problem of why Paul hasn’t got a job or can’t pay his mortgage.
Mike Kunkel, Anderson
Comments
There are 3 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
Insightful letter, Mr. Kunkel.
But we'll now get to see how well the "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" philosophy works on a grand, share-the-wealth scale with Obama Hood and his merry men in Congress.
You're absolutely right. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is not the answer. But if both Peter and Paul are being taxed in a manner that is proportional to their income, then many inquities that may cause Paul to be jobless could be possibly corrected. And let's not forget that there is a difference in the man who doesn't have a job because he isn't trying to have a job and the man who has lost a job that his employer has moved overseas for a cheaper labor pool.
If you have a big grassland and are leasing it out to several cattlemen, should each man pay a one-time entry fee and be allowed to place as many cattle as he wants on your land? Or should they pay proportionately to the amount of cattle they have?
If you want the right-wing, every man for himself mentality, go join the anarchists in their street riots. You'd fit right in.
If you want a fair system based on a common community and society, be proud to live in the USA under President-Elect Obama.
(Requires free registration.)