LETTERS: Region better served with two papers


To the editor:

I was very disappointed to see that the Las Vegas Sun might be eliminated from the daily Review-Journal. Contrary to some individuals, I welcome opposing viewpoints, as I have found there is a great deal to learn from reading all sides of an issue. When you are only presented with one side, you fail to learn, fail to broaden your perspectives, fail to see other sides, and you become bigoted in your small frame of reference.

I don’t always agree with the Las Vegas Sun editorials, nor do I always agree with the Review-Journal editorials. In fact, I sometimes agree with Review-Journal columnist Sherman Frederick. The point is, when you eliminate opposing thoughts, you diminish the concept of free speech and the ability to learn, and you isolate yourself from understanding and working with those who disagree with you. How sad.

MICHAEL STILLEY

MESQUITE

Two viewpoints

To the editors:

I’ve been lamenting the fact that the Las Vegas Sun most likely will no longer be printed. Then I read Warren Pawliuk’s letter to the Review-Journal about how happy he was to say good riddance to the Sun (“Las Vegas Sun should set,” Saturday).

I truly like both newspapers together. This way, I can read the opinion pieces and editorials of both newspapers, then compare and contrast. While I don’t usually agree with the Review-Journal’s viewpoints, I sometimes do and use such to compare with the Sun’s slant. I even sometimes don’t agree with the Sun, but the important thing for the public — including Mr. Pawliuk — is to have two different perspectives. This helps keep the public more informed, more broad-minded and hopefully less biased. It seems obvious, however, that it hasn’t worked for Mr. Pawliuk.

JERRY MOSIER

PAHRUMP

No brainwashing

To the editor:

It’s so sad how narrow-minded so many people can be in wanting only one side of the news. The Review-Journal leans right, and the Sun leans left, so different positions are presented on many topics.

I personally don’t want to be brainwashed in either direction, and having just one side represented in printed matter is always a concern. In my house, major TV news comes from PBS, unless we want local information, but I sure will hate the lack of diversification with my morning coffee.

Thank you for including the Sun in our delivered newspaper for all this time. It proves you’re not about providing just one opinion all the time.

ELIZABETH POOLE

LAS VEGAS

Governmental carjacking

To the editor:

After reading Robert Raider’s letter (“Mileage tax has too many loopholes,” Aug. 21), in which he referred to intelligent people who choose to drive and own property in Nevada in addition to their home state as “parasites,” I felt a response was in order.

Being from Pittsburgh and owning property in both states, the reason I don’t register my vehicles in Nevada can best be summed up in three words: dollars and cents. I’ll use a 2013 sedan that was purchased for $30,000 as an example. In Pennsylvania, the cost to register that vehicle is $36 a year. The cost to inspect that vehicle every year thereafter will be $55 to $60, with all work being done by dealerships or garages. Average yearly cost: less than $100 a year. The exact same fees apply regardless of the sales price of the sedan. So if a vehicle costs $12,000 or $85,000, the fees don’t change.

In Nevada, the cost to register that same vehicle would be $33.00 a year. Not bad. But Nevada has two onerous taxes, both of which are based on the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, not the actual sale price. The first tax is the governmental services tax, and the second is the supplemental services tax. So the same $30,000 car that costs less than $100 a year in Pennsylvania would cost $558 in Nevada for just the first year, and every year thereafter the registration fee is based on the value of the vehicle.

That, my friends, is governmental carjacking. And by the way, the Nevada figures cited are courtesy of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.

It’s obvious that Nevada’s Republicans and Democrats have one simple tax policy: tax the masses. Nevada has a 6.85 percent state sales tax rate. Only Californian, New Jersey, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Mississippi are higher. Take a bow Nevada, you’re in the top 10 for something. The state sales tax rate in Massachusetts is 6.25 percent, and it’s 4.0 percent in New York.

Higher sales taxes, higher gas taxes and the proposed mileage and amusement taxes all have one common theme: tax the masses. Nevada taxpayers are being fleeced with their eyes wide open. So if Mr. Raider considers me a parasite, I’ll take that as a compliment. Parasites such as me didn’t vote for anyone in Nevada. And we parasites will gladly pay less taxes elsewhere. Enjoy being fleeced.

DAN WARNER

LAS VEGAS

Road repair taxes

To the editor:

Regarding the Aug. 19 article on fuel taxes (“Official urges fuel tax increase”), having finally been able to buy a new car after driving my old one for a long time, I got a real shock when I went to register the vehicle. Nevada must charge one of the highest registration fees in the country. My bill was close to $500, and I didn’t buy any high-priced luxury car.

I won’t support any new tax; the state should use the majority of current registration fees for road repair. There should be plenty of money available.

MARNIE WAGNER

LAS VEGAS

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.