[Northampton-GP] Re: Jill Stein's proposal for fair taxes

[JPDarash at aol.com]

Denny, 
    With regard to fair taxes, Jill Stein pointed out that the upper one 
percent of tax payers pay a bit more than 6 percent of their gross income for 
various taxes, including property, sales and income tax. The lowest 20 
percent pay just over nine percent of their gross income. Based on long 
established "progressive tax" principles, if the upper one percent also paid 
9 percent of their gross incomes, the state would increase its revenues by 
over $2-billion dollars. Also, based on my own calculations, if the state 
income tax was graduated, a person with a net taxable income of $50, 000 
whose tax rate increased from the present 5.3 % to 6.0% would incur only 
about $5 per week in additional taxes, less than one cocktail before dinner 
per week. A person with a net taxable income of $100, 000, would pay an 
additional $8 per week, approximately.

As for seniority: We do not discriminate against people because of their age. 
Contrary to popular opinion, in both the private and public sector, senior 
employees are often those who have worked hard and developed incredible 
skills and knowledge. (For example, if you had to face major surgery, would 
you prefer a first year resident, or a doctor with a long proven track 
record, a intern teller at the bank, or the person who has taken care of you 
for years?) By permitting managers to disregard seniority, we are opening the 
way for favoritism, political patronage and other abuses. One of the most 
innocuous examples is a manager who is under pressure to cut her operating 
budget. In order to please her immediate superior, she knows that she can cut 
fewer competent high paid senior employees, than competent new employees in 
order to reach her goal, without regard to fairness, and certainly little 
regard for retaining the most qualified. Also, such a system feeds into the 
"go-it-alone" competition at any cost that has caused such worldwide 
injustice in the global economy.

What's wrong with privatization...read The Multinational Monitor - Ralph 
Nadar's magazine...A few months back he had an article that said that over 
time privatization is at least as expensive as the old system, except money 
goes into the pockets of large corporations, not into the hands of workers. 
Case in point, many federal buildings replaced, through attrition, the civil 
servants who once cleaned them, with employees of a contractor that "hires 
the handicapped." The disabled workers have done a wonderful job. Yet, rather 
than be paid a living wage with benefits such as health insurance and 
pensions, such as those earned by civil servants, they are paid minimum wage, 
with no benefits - not even sick leave - their employer makes big profits, 
and taxpayers underwrite the corporation by providing SSI and health 
insurance to its employees, even though it could afford to pay a living wage 
and at least part of the health care costs.  I urge you to read Multinational 
Monitor, which reported on the successes and failures of privitization in the 
US with regard to prisons, schools, and water systems. Remember, coporations 
want the biggest profit possible.

                 Best wishes,  Jim Palermo