Attention, tax hikers: An introduction to economics
To the editor:
I am going to keep this as simple as possible so that even a politician can understand: Raising taxes and fees will slow, if not stop, an economic recovery in this state.
With fewer people working (we have a statewide unemployment rate of 8 percent), less money is being spent in retail establishments, service industries and casinos. If you raise taxes and fees, which would be passed on to the consumer, either directly or indirectly, consumers will have less money to spend on the same goods.
Examples of this simple truth would have a consumer spending more on gasoline due to tax increases and, as a result, having less to spend on food. If you spend more for furniture due to increases in business taxes, sales taxes, usage fees, ad infinitum, you don't go to the movies.
See how that works? It follows Newton's Law, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Now, as we drive through the Interstate 15 construction project we can gleefully gaze at the shrubbery, which we paid for as part of a beautification project, now being dug up and trashed. We can look upon those $10,000 desert tortoises at the Spaghetti Bowl and know that was money well-spent as state budgets are cut.
In these tough economic times, as stores lay off workers or close, politicians will be able to say with pride that at least they raised their taxes. The problem of course, is that closed stores do not pay taxes, and unemployed people do not buy much, let alone stimulate an economy.
This is the end of an introduction to Economics 101. Please introduce this to the Legislature and state public employee unions so that they can begin to understand reality.
Darrell Welch
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Finding every dollar
To the editor:
In your Wednesday editorial, "The check is in the mail," you stated that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley demonstrated "interesting logic" in declaring that ending a property tax rebate program for low-income senior citizens would constitute a tax increase. You also pointed out that simply reducing their tax by assessing different property tax rates on different homes, based upon the owners' incomes and assets, is a more practical but perhaps constitutionally problematic solution.
As a military veteran, I receive a small reduction in my property taxes. Is this a Clark County-funded program, or do I receive a reduction from the state? I'm no Nevada constitutional scholar, but why are any of these property tax offsets and potential changes constitutional? Why aren't these deviations a constitutional violation, since they yield similar outcomes regardless of how they are executed?
Like you, I don't propose to take away the tax rebate from the elderly. But how about the 3 percent property tax cap for live-in homeowners and 8 percent cap for those who rent their homes out? Maybe the 8 percent cap is a little less unconstitutional because it is strictly voluntary -- you simply check a box if you rent your home -- and there is little or no enforcement.
When taxes of any kind are to be collected, enforcement is the key issue. How many people, workers and retirees, don't register their high-end vehicles in this state because of the high fees? Face it, these people know that there is little if any enforcement and that if caught the penalties are trivial.
Not long ago the state discovered, via the IRS, that the number of small businesses filing income taxes was about 400,000 and not the approximately 250,000 the state thought there were. What kind of state and local tax oversight and enforcement did we have then, and what do we have now?
In a time when our state and local governments are emptying their piggy banks looking for loose change, they also need to look under the bed and behind the dresser, so to speak, to see what never made it into the bank and why.
Richard Rychtarik
LAS VEGAS
Someone else pays
To the editor:
How interesting that the Review-Journal supports the consideration of 6 percent pay cuts for Nevada's public employees (Sunday editorial).
It appears that the Review-Journal is handling its own budget difficulties in a different way. The number of sections in my newspaper on Mondays and Tuesdays is down 50 percent. However, the cost of the newspaper remains the same.
You have apparently chosen to pass your decrease in advertising revenue on to your readers, rather than decrease the compensation of your employees (including management) until the shortfall was covered.
You see, it is always easy to take money out of someone else's pocket -- not so easy to take it out of your own.
JAMES M. JONES
HENDERSON
Oversight, anyone?
To the editor:
In response to your Wednesday story about the closure of a licensed day care center where a 1-year-old drowned in a swimming pool:
Just how does a facility with a pool get certified as a day care center?
Barry Bolger
HENDERSON
Trail mix
To the editor:
The issues facing the construction of a separate, multi-use route up to Red Rock Canyon seems, on the surface, to be a simple matter, and there seems to be a lot of support from cyclists, runners and others who would use it (Jan. 9 Review-Journal). But as a 30-year cyclist who has enjoyed hundreds of rides to the Red Rock area, I don't believe it is as simple as it seems.
First, it is a lot of money -- between $15 million and $20 million to build it -- and I have seen no mention of long-term funding to maintain it. That part always seems to slip through the cracks, and we're told, "Don't worry, we'll take care of it," but it never happens. That is a huge part of the expense that never goes away.
Also, it will surely be an environmental issue in a sensitive area that we love so much and want to keep pristine. As for the safety issue, I do understand some people being afraid to ride on the newly widened shoulder, but for a lot of us who have ridden for years, that extra width is definitely an extra safety margin. The separate route would mix inexperienced cyclists, runners and walkers together, and I for one do not feel very comfortable in that mix.
Also, I have long felt that a lower speed limit and vigorous enforcement along state Route 159 would be a better alternative. Doubling the speeding fines, because it is in a conservation area, would probably generate enough funds to pay for the enforcement.
The funding for the proposed route is coming from the sale of BLM land, but in our present economic conditions, couldn't that money be put to better use? In the end, if this route is built, I believe that many cyclists who are currently riding the Red Rock route will continue to ride the existing shoulder -- that is, unless we are banned from doing so. Personally, I will continue to ride where I have for all these years, enjoying it as I always have.
George C. Oliver
LAS VEGAS
Man of little faith
To the editor:
If I had a parrot, I would have a good use for the cover of Wednesday's Sports section -- lining the bottom of the bird cage. Instead, I must write of my displeasure in reading the commentary by the Los Angeles Times' Kurt Streeter, a man of little faith.
His disparaging remarks about athletes who give public praise to God were almost as disturbing as the editorial decision to give it such prominent space in the Review-Journal. Selfless athletes such as Kurt Warner and Tim Tebow believe their God-given talent and success should be used to benefit others.
The world is a better place because of them.
I cannot say the same for Mr. Streeter.
Mark Sanders
LAS VEGAS
