Letter: Another way to look at income taxes

Thursday, April 20, 2006 | 7:42 a.m.

Ken Kiddie wrote in Wednesday's letters to the editor section regarding his opinions on why those who pay the most taxes should get the most relief. It is his opinion; I respect it, but there are other ways to look at the income tax irregularities in America.

When Mr. Bush became president, he saw a situation left to him by Mr. Clinton where there was a potential for $1.35 trillion as the difference between collecting taxes and government spending. We can recall his words that the American people should get back their money. Not a terrible idea.

In his plan, those who made the most would get back a lot, those who made the least would get back little or nothing, and those in the middle would receive something in between. Still not a terrible idea.

When the $1.35 trillion evaporated as a result of spending more than they took in, a reasonable person might say we no longer had a problem of deciding how much to give back if there was nothing to give back. Mr. Bush continues to insist that income tax reform is necessary and the very rich should not have to pay as much in taxes. This is like a teenager telling his parents to give him less allowance; it works if the teenager (or the government) is willing to spend less money on a regular basis. Otherwise, the plan fails.

My message is this: If a rich person can afford to pay more because he or she has more and earns more, the government should expect this source of income to run their budget. Unless the government is willing to cut its budget, it needs all of its income to run a fiscally responsible operation.

And, to the poor people: Until you earn more money and pay more in taxes, you are not part of the equation of getting money back that you did not pay to Uncle Sam in the first place.

Ken Anderson, Las Vegas