Revamp federal tax
Everyone should be taxed the same on their federal income tax. The first $20,000 of taxable income should be taxed exactly the same rate for everyone: Zero percent. The second $20,000 of taxable income should be taxed at 5 percent. The third $20,000 should be taxed at 10 percent. The fourth $20,000 at 15 percent. The fifth at 20 percent, the sixth at 25 percent, the seventh at 30 percent, and so on until it tops out at $400,000. There is nothing complex about this. The complexity arises in the deductions and exemptions, and their exceptions and limitations.
This is demand-side economics as opposed to supply-side (trickle-down) economics. We had this progressive income tax from 1945 to 1980, with variations--and it topped out at about 90 percent of taxable income over $100,000. The top rate was lowered to 70 percent in 1964. Our economy (GDP) grew 12.56 times from 1945 to 1980. From 1980 to 2015 (a comparable 35-year period) our GDP grew only 6.33 times under trickle-down economics.
Supply-side economics is a proven failure. Had our GDP grown at the same rate from 1980 as it did from 1945 to 1980, our GDP in 2015 would have been in excess of $35 trillion instead of only $18 trillion.
The theory of supply-side economics is that we should not tax the job-makers as much because they use the money to create jobs for us. Bull! If you have not noticed, many jobs today do not pay a livable wage.
Tax the rich--not the poor. The poor have to spend everything they make to live. It is the poor who create demand in our economy. Don't worry about the rich. They have tax lawyers on their side. Demand starts at the bottom and works its way up--not the other way around.
RUUD DuVALL
Fayetteville
Deserving of coverage
My husband and I went to Fayetteville this past weekend and saw the marvelous Razorback roundball defeat of Ole Miss, and this was covered well in the paper. We saw the Razorback Diamond Hogs sweep Stony Brook, trouncing them all three games, and there was a good write-up about it on the last page of the sports section Sunday.
We also saw the Razorback softball team beat Nevada and then Boston University during some cold, cold weather. I really felt sorry for those girls on that field with a winter mix falling during the games. There was a tiny little blurb in my Sunday paper about the girls winning the first game against Boston University, and that was it. I thought, OK, it was over too late, and looked forward to reading about the girls' victory in Monday's paper. However, there was nothing ... no article and no pictures in the paper about their victories on Monday either.
Our girls won every game they played this weekend at the Woo Pig Sooie Tournament, but nobody saw fit to report it and nobody took pictures ... or if someone did, it did not make the paper. We have a great softball team, and I think they deserve to have coverage in the paper, too. What gives? Do you need someone who will do the reporting for you? Some of us enjoy reading about what a great job our Razorback softball team is doing!
SHARON SCOTT
Thornton
No Confederacy star
I applaud Governor Hutchinson's recent decision to support House Bill 1487, which would have removed the designation of honor for the Confederate States of America from the state flag, even if it occurred nearly a week after the bill's failure to clear committee. Aside from the fact that a star on our flag supports a cause which, if successful, would have resulted in the continued enslavement of thousands of Arkansans, it also honors a Confederate government that had no reciprocal respect for Arkansas in the war.
The Confederate government in Richmond gave up on the defense of Arkansas very early in the war. If it had devoted more effort in the defense of Arkansas, it might have attained the goal of capturing Missouri and would have perhaps delayed the Union objective of controlling the Mississippi River. The Confederacy did not send troops to defend Arkansas, instead sending incompetent generals such as Earl Van Dorn and Theophilus Holmes. Van Dorn lost the Battle of Pea Ridge despite having superior manpower, and then left the state with his remaining troops, leaving the state defenseless. This action led Arkansas governor Henry M. Rector to call for the state's secession from the Confederacy.
It's very possible that Confederates caused more damage in Arkansas than the Union forces. The Confederates, not the U.S. Army, looted and burned part of Fayetteville in February 1862. Confederate general Thomas C. Hindman conducted a policy of "total war" in Arkansas and, in doing so, victimized numerous Arkansas civilians in the destruction of crops and homes. Confederate guerrillas called "bushwhackers" preyed on Arkansas civilians.
I assert that Arkansans who survived the war would not have wanted to honor the Confederacy, so why should we?
ED CHESS
Little Rock
Medically inaccurate
I am writing with regard to Senate Bill 341, a bill recently filed by Sen. Missy Irvin that would require doctors to inform patients of "abortion pill reversal" if they are seeking an abortion.
This bill is deeply offensive to the people of Arkansas, both doctors and patients, because it would force doctors to spread blatant misinformation to their patients and to present lies as facts. There is no scientific evidence that abortion reversal is safe, nor is there evidence that it is even effective in performing its intended purpose.
Furthermore, a law of this type was unanimously repealed before it could even go into effect in Arizona in 2016--because the state was unable to gather any evidence supporting the law.
This bill is dangerous to Arkansans and would be deeply manipulative to people who are not up-to-date on current medical science, who might believe the lie that such a reversal is possible. I urge my fellow Arkansans to contact their state legislators and tell them to vote "no" on this medically inaccurate bill.
KAREN MUSICK
Little Rock
Editorial on 03/08/2019