advertisement

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Washington must address corporate tax reform

Friday, June 28, 2013 | 3:25 p.m. CDT; updated 3:34 p.m. CDT, Friday, June 28, 2013

Nelson Mandela said, “A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest.”

The United States has the biggest gap between the rich and the poor than any other industrialized nation. Corporate tax reform should be the big issue in Washington now.

Major profitable corporations must be pressed to do their part and to pay their fair share. If the big corporations would pay their fair share of taxes, then our government would have more than enough money to pay for critical, life-saving programs.

The “Fix the Debt” campaign, an industry front group led by millionaire CEOs,  seeks to “fix” our economy by widening corporate tax loopholes and shrinking the budgets of people living on Social Security. They want to create a debt crisis when there is not one.

We must close the corporate loopholes so that we have more revenue to work with. Then, we could actually strengthen our vital programs not make unnecessary shameful cuts to services. In our country, one in six adults, and one in five children,  are living in poverty — levels we haven’t seen in America since the 1960s.

Considering the staggering number of people suffering under the poverty line in our “great” country, I think the last thing we should be doing is smiling at the wealthiest corporations and telling them they don’t need to pay into the system from which they receive so much.

Put people first. Fair taxes, NOT CUTS.

Gretchen Maune is an intern with GRO-Grass Roots Organizing and an MPA candidate at the Truman School of Public Affairs at MU.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jimmy Bearfield June 30, 2013 | 1:11 p.m.

Of course, Gretchen, corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers and shareholders do. That means you're advocating a tax increase on the people you're trying to help. Be careful what you wish for.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 30, 2013 | 3:25 p.m.

There is much to be said for removing selective tax breaks (and NOT just for corporations); a flat (percentage) tax on both business and individual earnings would be considered more fair - provided EVERYONE contributes (see below).

Also, while special tax breaks (in effect, "incentives") can be both needed and useful where new technologies and businesses are concerned (for example, developing alternate energy sources) all such "incentives" should have built-in "sunset" dates: at which time evaluation of the tax incentive and any further need of it should be MANDATORY.

"We must close the corporate loopholes so that we have more revenue to work with." Will you then spend that revenue as poorly as some of it has been spent since the 1950s? Will you use the increased revenue to endlessly repeat past errors? Or will our federal government FINALLY employ REAL planning and REAL economic judgement*. Will ALL American citizens be required to contribute SOME portion of their income, no matter how small (see flat tax, above)? If not, WHY not? Either we're all in this together or we aren't. It's rather obvious that at present that WE ARE NOT.

* - The ancient saying about "throwing good money after bad" is just as true now as it was before the 1960s.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 30, 2013 | 4:00 p.m.

"Will you use the increased revenue to endlessly repeat past errors?"
___________________

Why, I do believe that was Dave Rosman's strategy printed herein just the other day!
____________________

Each month, each working person should receive their FULL salary. At the end of each month, each person should write THEIR OWN checks for fed, state, fica, futa, medicare, etc.

We'd have MUCH better government..........

And a more enlightened citizenry.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 30, 2013 | 7:52 p.m.

Q: Why did the moron deliberately hit his thumb with a ball peen hammer?

A: Because he said it felt so good when he stopped.

What we have in the present case is different. The moron has repeatedly abused his thumb with the ball peen hammer, and is aware that doing so hurts (in other words, he's well aware of the consequences). But the moron doesn't propose to stop abusing his thumb: he now believes that if he's given a sledge hammer to hit his thumb with, everything will be just fine.

Is it possible to be an adult with one or more university degrees and also be a moron? That's meant simply as a rhetorical question.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 30, 2013 | 9:20 p.m.

The Bill Clinton crowd introduced the "fair share" con. He put much of his cabinet on the radio to explain his "deficit reduction", plan. Sec Labor R. Reich took a call from young man stating he had just started his new business and did not see how he could make it with the new Clinton taxes. Reich told him apparently with a straight face, "your problem is, you haven't been paying your fair share!" and ended the call. Gretchen gives us, "Major profitable corporations must be pressed to do their part and to pay their fair share. If the big corporations would pay their fair share of taxes, then our government would have more than enough money to pay for critical, life-saving programs."

Gretchen, since 2009 we have had more "critical, life-saving programs" foisted upon us than ever before. Obamacare will swell these numbers further, yet you tell us about levels of poverty "we haven’t seen in America since the 1960s" and tell us more money is the answer.

I really grow weary with those bent on expansion of government, trying to make us believe they have concern for our poor. Want to reduce our number of poor? Get this progressive, liberal government our of our way and allow our people to use the opportunity that has always been available here! Your programs make certain that they will remain subservient to you and yours. You, of course already knew this.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 30, 2013 | 9:43 p.m.

Ellis says, "Is it possible to be an adult with one or more university degrees and also be a moron?"
________________

Why do people always ask me that?

;^(

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 30, 2013 | 9:47 p.m.

Liberalism absolutely depends upon a new generation of dupes-to-be.

It has to do with "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are older, you have no brain."

Or somesuch.......I prolly shouldn't have put that in quotation marks.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 30, 2013 | 9:52 p.m.

I'm betting Gretchen will not define "fair".

Probably because it's a moving target.

Of course, until "fair" is defined, there is no negotiation.

Which is probably the intent all along.

Hint: "Fair" is defined by the recipient who will, of course, tell you when to quit.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements