LETTERS: Margins tax brings undeniable harm

To the editor:

It seems that last-minute efforts are being brought forward by supporters of the so-called Education Initiative to discredit the undeniable harm its passage would cause, in the form of lost jobs, higher consumer costs and unfair burdens to small businesses. Obviously, proponents of this poorly written margins tax measure have never been involved closely with the operation of a business, especially a small one.

The attitude of a large percentage of the population is that nearly every dollar of revenue translates to profit for the ownership of the business, and the wording on this measure reeks of that attitude. If the tax was a company’s only operating expense, it would not be overbearing, but the owner must pay workers, payroll taxes, benefits, utilities, repair and maintenance, amortized expenses, rent or other occupancy costs, advertising, interest on loans (which are normally inevitable), permits, licenses, insurance premiums and an endless array of unanticipated expenditures.

The margins tax would only add to the list of financial burdens that must be satisfied before the ownership can claim a dime of profit. These expenses, although already paid, would be taxed.

The argument that revenues collected as a result of this travesty would be earmarked merely means they would provide funds to the schools, primarily at the elementary level, but with no guarantees the money would be spent on textbooks or more qualified teachers. They could be used for incentives for administrators or new office space and staff — throwing money at schools does not guarantee better education.

A better approach would be to support issues to improve the business environment in the state, bring more jobs, better homes and more consumer spending, leading to more sales tax and property tax revenues which could help provide schools with much-needed funds.



Mixed message on Cranor

To the editor:

The Review-Journal has some explaining to do. Two weeks ago, Trevon Milliard reported that the Clark County School District had paid a $100,100 settlement to have Clark County School Board President Erin Cranor dropped from a lawsuit against the district. The lawsuit was brought because, without any authority to do so, Mrs. Cranor allegedly directed the CCSD superintendent to immediately terminate its contract with Business Benefits Inc.

The termination was done as Ms. Cranor directed and, as a consequence, Business Benefits Inc. sued CCSD and Ms. Cranor. Although it had no legal obligation to do so, CCSD offered to pay Business Benefits Inc. $100,100 to drop Mrs. Cranor from the lawsuit. Business Benefits accepted the deal and received two checks in settlement. Thus, Mrs. Cranor avoided having to pay any money out of her pocket.

That money comes from the taxpayers and was intended to pay for children’s education, not Mrs. Cranor’s lawsuits. The settlement also violated CCSD regulations and Nevada state law. Mrs. Cranor and members of the board have heretofore refused comment.

After having all of this information available, the Review-Journal editorial board did not withdraw its endorsement Mrs. Cranor for re-election to the School Board.

A Review-Journal editorial published Oct. 21 slammed CCSD by stating, “The administration’s disdain for taxpayers and the rule of law, to say nothing of the spineless stewardship of elected trustees, has failed the system and the valley again.” Perhaps much the same could be said of the Review-Journal when it endorsed Mrs. Cranor.

Did the editors of the Review-Journal forget that she is the president of the “spineless stewards” of CCSD? Ricky Ricardo said it best: “Somebody has some ’splainin to do!”



News Headlines
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like