Letters to the editor, March 10
March 8, 2013 4:24PM
SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit
or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us
your letter to the editor, mail to: 1433 E. 83rd Ave., Merrillville, IN 46410; fax to: (219) 648-3249; or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .
If you have questions, call Diane Aden Hayes, managing editor, at (219) 648-3241.
Updated: April 11, 2013 6:05AM
Bush tax cuts were a good thing, made economy grow
There are a lot of stories about how the Bush tax cuts added so much money to the national debt. Actually the 2003 Bush tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth, which generated 8 million new jobs, and a 4.4 percent unemployment rate.
Many liberal economists say the Bush tax cuts were put in place to help the rich. According to the official IRS data, the top 1 percent paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they did in 2000. The top 1 percent had their tax rate cut by 13 percent, while the bottom 50 percent saw a 33 percent cut in their taxes. From 2000 to 2007 the top 1 percent share of taxes rose from 37 percent to 40 percent, and the bottom 50 percent dropped 3.9 percent to 2.9 percent.
Total revenue soared from $783 billion in 2003 to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47 percent increase. Capital gains revenue doubled by 2005 despite the 25 percent capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003.
From 2003 to 2007, labor productivity increased by 25 percent, higher than any time in the ’70s, ’80s or ’90s. As a result, real after-tax income increased by more than 11 percent.
I think these figures show that cutting taxes, and growing the economy, can lead to more revenue and a better America. Two things happen when you do this: The middle class has more money to spend, and instead of the wealthy paying millions to lawyers to take advantage of tax loopholes, they will pay their fair share of taxes.
If you learn about using a gun then you would be safe
Chris Rettig: You say you wouldn’t know how you would react if you and your family were being threatened and you had a gun. I am in agreement with you. Don’t get a gun! However, if your thinking should change — I doubt it will — there are numerous gun-training facilities and videos on safety and procedures. I’ll bet in a few short weeks you’ll get a handle on things such as: Which end of the gun the bullet comes out; you keep the gun, the bad guy gets the bullet; and being mugged, raped or having your throat slit is not an option while you have a gun in your possession!
Chris, I’m not sorry about the sarcasm. I get this way when someone ignorant about facts and stats spouts off about removing one of my constitutional rights. The cities and states with the most stringent gun laws have the most violent crime rates. Chris, suppose hypothetically you were a bad guy and you were fixing to go rape, rob and pillage for the day. Would you go to Bugtussle Nowhere, USA, where just about everyone is packing or would you go to Chicago where almost none of the law-abiding citizenry has a gun? If you picked Bugtussle, I’m pretty sure you need to be in an institution to receive intensive therapy. But if you picked Chicago, then you must be starting to understand the facts!
If me or my family were being assaulted and I had a gun I know exactly how I would react — the perpetrator’s birth certificate would become a worthless document!
Tommy Neil Whitaker