We pay for tax increases
I have a brother-in-law who is a optometrist, and he has worked hard and developed a good practice. He employs about a dozen people. He would be one of these rich people “not paying their fair share.” The 90 percent are small business owners just like him.
He knows how much he has to take home from his practice to live the way he wants to. If we raise his taxes, he must either cut expenses, higher fewer people or raise the price of his glasses. Either way, we pay for his tax increase. That is the way it works: Businesses pass added expenses on to the consumer. It is we who will pay the tax increase on the rich.
If I can figure this out, it is amazing that all these brilliant politicians cannot. That is how all this fairness works. Be careful what you wish for, or you may get it.
Bob Mercer
Bucksport
Tower, controller needed
The BDN reported in the Nov. 20 edition that the truck in the fatal plane crash in Owls Head had no lighted beacon.
In my opinion, the Federal Aviation Administration should require that the Knox County Regional Airport have a control tower and an air controller.
Richard W. Sykes
Rockland
Remember those in need
I have heard many people say that Thanksgiving is the true start of their holiday season. This is when many of us can begin to look forward to spending time with our loved ones and sharing wonderful meals together. Around the corner are more get-togethers and family reunions. There are many things to be thankful for and much to celebrate.
For a lot of Mainers of all ages, these holiday times are not be so cheerful. As the colder days and nights become more frequent, some of our most at-risk neighbors will find themselves with fewer resources.
There are many accounts of older Mainers who become more and more isolated during the winter months, but this is a great time to reach out and see how we can help. If we start to look beyond our own holiday activities, we might be able to offer someone we know a little support and a little contact. One cannot understate the value of spending time with someone who is lonely.
This is also a great time to remember to donate to local food pantries, either with monetary or with food contributions. We are lucky to have dedicated organizations and community partners who work tirelessly to help keep food on the table for those who need it the most. We can all make a difference in that effort by continuing to remember those in need in the weeks and months to come.
Dr. Erica Magnus
AARP Outreach Volunteer
Windham
A new look at Lincoln
Inspired by the movie “Lincoln,” there has been an uptick in comments that find fault with Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers of the Union Army.
These are comments that Lincoln or his soldiers were not politically correct in modern terms. Lincoln, the Republican, ran against three candidates in 1860: John Bell, the Constitutional Union Party; John Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat; and Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat. Americans knew that if you were against slavery, there was only once choice. In 1864 it was between Democrat George McClellan, who promised peace, and Lincoln, who promised war to the bitter end. If McClellan had won, there would have been a peace agreement, and the slaves would have remained slaves.
When the war began, it is true that most Union soldiers were in the war to save the Union. As the Union forces saw the conditions of slavery up close and personal, the troops were quickly catching up to Lincoln as seeing this war as a moral war. Lincoln was the only choice for those who claimed then and claim now to care about the ending of slavery. In 1864 by a large majority, the soldiers voted for Lincoln. They also knew they could be signing their own death warrant.
Lincoln won re-election in a war with six times more Union deaths than American deaths in the Vietnam War from a Northern population one-ninth the size. Could any modern president have inspired an American population to take those kinds of losses to end slavery? No.
David Dubovy
Bangor
Condemn equally on political spending
A recent OpEd piece by Nancy Galland of Stockton Springs decried the amount that “undisclosed wealthy individuals and their corporate allies (the 1 percent)” spent on the recent election. She opined that our nation of the people has become “a corporatocracy – a nation of the corporations, by the corporations.”
Of course, Galland is right on with her disgust with how much money was raised to virtually buy elections. Seeing the amounts that are spent, one must conclude that the spenders are parting with such large sums because they do get results.
From other such opinion pieces, plus hearing folks talk about the issue, it is clear that this influence buying “1 percent” is believed to be, by and large, Republicans. That is, the right-wing corporate bigwigs throwing their weight (and money) around.
But hold on. An examination of the Federal Election Commission profile of the nation’s top political contributors tells a different story. Looking at the top 20 contributors in the past 20 years, there are three corporations, one super-PAC (ActBlue, the top contributor with 99 percent going to Democrats), five organizations and 11 labor unions. Overall, the Democratic Party benefited by receiving 71 percent of the total donations. Corporations gave fairly evenly between the parties, with a slight edge to Republicans. The unions overwhelmingly favored Democrats. This pattern continues throughout the list of contributors.
So, do spread indignation for this fiasco, but don’t condemn one group and wink at the other.
Dale Sprinkle
Surry
Proud of family veterans
I was recently listening to the news when I heard reporter Sharon Rose of Channel 2 News asking Lee Nelson if they honored Veterans Day in England.
They certainly do, but they call it Armistice Day, and on Nov. 11 at 11 a.m. they have two minutes of silence to honor the brave servicemen and women who gave their lives for their country.
My father was in World War I, one brother in the Royal Air Force and one in the British Army. I married a soldier in the U.S. Army and came to this country when I was only 20. I became a U.S. citizen in 1951, of which I am very proud. I had a son who served in the U.S. Navy for four years. I am very proud of the five veterans in my family on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
God bless America, my country not by birth but by choice.
Patricia Beach
Lambert Lake
Dale Sprinkle- You are right. Both parties are bought and paid for. And it is not their constituents that did the buying. If they have a D or an R after their name, don’t believe a thing they tell you.
Bob Mercer- I noticed that you left out the obvious first choice for your brother-in-law if his taxes are raised. Cut back on his personal spending. Just like everyone else has had to do. The government is going to have to do the same thing, or all our taxes will go up even more. We could solve all our economic and budgetary problems by putting America back to work. The problem is, I don’t see anyone in Washington lifting a finger to slow down the flood of jobs to China or encouraging people to buy American. They should all wear little Chinese flags on their lapels, instead of American ones.
Bob Mercer–I am wishing for a return to a more progressive taxation like we had in the 50′ and 60’s. We put a man on the moon. We built our interstate highway system. We developed the first successful middle class in history. We reduced poverty immensely. We are currently paying the smallest percentage of taxes since the 30’s.
We don’t have a spending problem–we have a distribution of wealth problem and it is past time for the wealthy to do their patriotic duty and help us out.
Mr. Mercer, you do not understand taxable income and marginal tax rates. A $4000,000 profit, after standard deductions and exemptions, likely equals just $300,000 in taxable income. Of that, only $50,000 (the excess taxable income over $250,000) would be subject to a rate that would be 4.6% higher than the current rate. This amounts to the princely sum of $2,300. If your brother-in-law sees things differently he needs to see an optometrist.
His point is that you will ultimately pay for it and to some degree he is right.
I think we are already paying for it. That’s why the 1% are getting off cheaply: the little guy is paying for it now out of less. I have a friend who grosses well over $250,000. He’s told me he would not even notice $ 4,000 less unless his accountant told him about it
You friends story is likely true. But not all income is the same. Not all income comes to a person in a paycheck. Sometimes it is the shape of a business mortgage payment or a new piece of undepreciated equipment on a K1. The effect on a business is likely to be more than just writing a check out of a pile of money. The IRS prefers cash but when your profit makes its appearance as brick or perhaps a new piece of office furniture it can cause problems.
The letterwriter is likely talking about business income on a K1 that appears on a personal return. The only way to pay it may well be to increase prices.
One other thing… chance are good the “little guy” you refer to pays no income taxes which is the subject of our discussion. But he will pay the cost as goods and services rise.
Bob Mercer, I am a little unclear about what you’re saying, but I gather your brother takes home $250k plus. So what will his tax increase be, a couple grand at most? That doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to raise his prices IMO. I see prices going up everywhere, all the time, regardless. And that would be his choice, while consumers could choose to shop elsewhere. Why are you writing on your brother’s behalf?
His brother-in-law would have to surrender those Zumba lessons in southern Maine. We can’t let that happen.
I wonder if the feckless brother-in-law appreciates all this.
He’s likely a mythical brother-in-law.
Republicans have a lot of imaginary friends and relatives. Why, Charlie Webster spoke with four or five imaginary friends before he told us about black voters registering in small Maine towns on Election Day.
Stop focusing on reality and begin watching Fox News!
You think Mr. Mercer is being disingenuous? That would be shameful. I’m not sure, but don’t you think that when he writes that his brother-in-law has “about a dozen employees” it has the ring of truth? Also, does anyone know what he means by “the 90 percent”?
Bob Mercer
The markup of the eyeglass frames is outrageous. It’s harder to afford a good pair of glasses from the optometrist these days.
Sounds like the optometrist is going to have to live within his means.
The folks making over 250,000 are the ones living withing their means. It is the welfare/disabled fraud sods that overspend. They all seem to have cigarettes, booze, big screen cable tvs,and plenty of government supplied money to spend on black Friday.
Laughing at Bonny in MS. How do you know these people? Are they your neighbors? Do you check their alcohol and tobacco consumption every day? Have you been inside their homes checking their electronics? Do you require them to report their revenue and expenses to you every day? Did you itemize their Black Friday spending for them.
Bonny, I hate to tell you but these people don’t exist. They are like the monsters under little kids beds. They are a figment of your conservative Limbaugh/Beck/Breitbart imagination.
But, you gotta love Bonny’s monsters, living the life of O’Reilly: smoking and drinking and watching TV and wasting money on Christmas gifts right there under Bonny’s bed. Ooooo scary! LOL
.
You are truly delusional. You are seeing things that don’t exist.
Actually those that make that much do not live very well within their means. Those that make that much can not take much of a pay cut simply because they can not afford to take one.
Bob Mercer, so if he has a tax increase of 2% back to the Clinton era levels he will have to lay someone off or raise the price of his products or services? Umm, how many cutomers does he have? How much will that 2% spread among all his paying cutomers cost per cusomer? Will his competitors have an unfair advantage over him?
Maybe we should never tax anyone after they reach the golden parachute of $250, 000.00 per year. They are after all the only people that matter. The rest of us are just a bunch of poor slobs who deserve no respect, as we are a drag on society.
Bob Mercer said: ” If we raise his taxes, he must either cut expenses, higher fewer people or raise the price of his glasses.”
Hey Bob: Expenses and payroll are paid out of cash flow, in pretax dollars: cutting them will actually raise his taxable income (assuming he can still service his business, in which case it has shown that he is overstaffed and running his business inefficiently).
This is the best observation and commentary yet. He is exactly correct.
In order to keep the same ROI which banks enjoy seeing so you still have access to capital, new sources of revenue must be found whether through price increases of internal cuts. That new revenue number must be a larger percentage than the increase tax you are paying.
I’m sick of seeing these small business owners being used as tools and cover for the hyper-rich. 251,000 a year means only 1,000 of that income will see an increase.
Republicans — you lost the election because you thought the country is stupid. You thought the country would believe your lies and your spin. It’s not going to work. We have some debt to pay off and it’s time to get back to being responsible. That means going back to Clinton era tax rates and spending. Plain and simple. You can threaten us all you want and say you’ll pass the costs on and you’ll stop creating jobs — but we’re not stupid, we know that’s nonsense.
Mr Mercer: Your brother in law must have quite a large optometric practice with that many employees. Is he part of a clinic or multi-practice! Not that it is not good to provide jobs, but just wondering about the necessity of that many employees in an optometrist’s office (private practice.) That is a new one to me.
Also, maybe your brother in law is living more “lavishly” than he needs to be. Only surmising. Maybe he could cut back a bit, as many have to , but still have a good and comfortable life. Maybe he could look at doing some of those things before considering raising the cost of “his glasses.” The optometrist we go to is excellent but he does not sell eyeglasses. I am not saying some don’t. Is your brother in law an optician….
Perhaps he’s an opthalmoletristician. They do all three.
Bob Mercer
If the politicians let on that the taxes are really aimed at the middle class they might be exposed as hypocrites. They of course don’t really care where it ultimately comes from as long as the money runs through them.
Please repost that in English.
How about this. As simply as I can. The rich will find away around it as they always do. The cost will just be passed on to you.
Yes, as they have always done. The unscrupulous, unpatriotic ones that is. The ones you people refer to as the job creators.
It’s just math… and the law of unintended consequences at work.
Bob and Dale, you LOST the election, deal with it, and go peddle your right wing corporate toadie propaganda someplace like on the FreeRepublic website so other people stuck in your FAKE-NOISE bubble can swallow up this tripe as it is all they want to hear. The majority, who know the truth, aren’t interested in the right wing lies and propaganda talking points.
R. Sykes, Dr. Magnus, D. Dubovy, P. Beach: good letters.
Mr. Mercer, there are always exceptions, but in general the wealthy pocket the money they save from tax cuts so they can make money off the interest. They don’t hire more employees with the savings or make risky investments. That’s why they’re wealthy. So cutting their taxes more or repealing the tax breaks they enjoy isn’t going to have much, if any, effect on the economy — except prevent the government from investing in a deteriorating infrastructure and taking care of an aging populace.
The most telling phrase in your comment, Mr. Mercer, is “to live the way he wants to”, Yes, by all means, your brother-in-law’s high standard of living must be vigorously defended against the very people who have enabled it. Employees and customers be damned. Only the lifestyle of the “good” doctor matters. I must thank you though for posting yet one more glaring example of the arrogant, self-worshiping, greed drenched mind set that has infected a tragically large percentage of this Nation. You and your fellow travelers have a possibly incurable case of “Marie Antoinette Blindness Syndrome”, and you don’t need 20/20 vision to see where that might lead.
O.K. Mr. Mercer what you fail to recognize is that those who work hard and try to get ahead do not deserve to have a better life than those who choose to sleep in and wait for that govmint check ,it’s theirs and they have not done a dam thing to earn it.How heartless can you possibly be to deny them what others have worked so hard for.Freakin evil capitalists.
Did Ms Rose ask the question because she did not know, or was it to fill air time? I didn’t hear the interview and would like to hold judgement. I hope that the reporter did already know the anwer.