The Republicans’ hysterical reaction to President Barack Obama’s plan to keep reduced tax rates for people with incomes under $250,000 seems to ignore the fact that this also benefits those lucky enough to make more.
Keeping tax rates at the current level for those with net taxable income below $250,000 has the same impact for the first $250,000 of income, regardless of how much more anyone makes. Returning to the somewhat higher tax rate from the Clinton era for incomes above the $250,000 level only affects the taxable amount over that limit. This simple fact is often forgotten — deliberately or due to ignorance.
Furthermore, to claim that going from a 35 percent rate to 39.6 percent for net taxable income above $250,000 will result in unemployment and problems for small businesses is nonsense and disproved by history. A small business netting more than $250,000, or an individual business person making more than that amount in net taxable income, isn’t exactly hurting. A somewhat higher tax rate for the wealthy has no impact on job creation. More take-home pay for the lower and middle classes will increase demand for goods and services, stimulate the market and ultimately spur additional hiring. That’s how it works.
Jorg Aadahl, San Mateo
The corrupt charade of San Francisco politics continues forthwith (“Perjury claims dismissed,” July 20). The San Francisco Ethics Commission now has the dubious distinction of appearing to be nothing more than a “dog and pony show” in a banana republic nation.
One could almost be assured that if the “former and current city officials” who disputed Mayor Ed Lee’s testimony in the Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi hearings had been, for example, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein or Willie Brown, the subpoenas would have already been in the mail. Dutiful pandering to The City’s oligarchy trumps decent public service every time.
George Gutekunst, San Francisco
I’m sick and tired of all the complaints about money lost because of the bans on shark fin soup and foie gras.
What about the pain and suffering the sharks, ducks and geese have to endure? All people care about is money — there are other things people can eat besides shark fin soup and foie gras.
Sue Ramirez, San Francisco
My letter was published in your paper (“Nuclear fallout poses risk,” May 30) in response to news regarding radiation from Japan’s damaged nuclear power plant. Now, less than two months later, the reports are of an even greater concern.
One online publication’s headline about the “Plume-gate” cover-up of Japan’s man-made disaster read in part: “Fukushima reactor No. 4 vulnerable to catastrophic collapse ... human civilization at risk.”
The structurally damaged No. 4 pool is some 100 feet aboveground, is exposed to the elements and is getting warmer. There are a total of 11,421 spent fuel rods stored at the 30-year-old six-reactor site, which contains some 336 million curies of long-lived radioactivity, of which 134 million curies is Cesium-137.
Additionally, within five years the radiation in the cooling water already dumped into the Pacific Ocean will have arrived on our West Coast, making it more radioactive than even Japan.
Frank Norton, San Francisco