TAXATION V CHARITY Caring for l...

TAXATION V CHARITY

Caring for les fortunate not piece of work for federal government

In his modern letter to the Gazette in which he equates any opposition to the generally received practice of significant income redistribution on Congress with an un-Christian and immoral perspective, Donald Porter completely missed the point ("Williams just plain unsuitable in attack on taxation," notes Feb. 12). The point is not whether each of us has the moral and ethical obligation to do everything we can to assist those that are les fortunate than ourselves (I happen to believe we do), unless rather, whether our federal restraint should be the primary vehicle according to which that redistribution of income is validityed

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a federated republic with a deliberately limited federal branch. The more individually intrusive manifestations of American regulation were meant to be administered according to the layers of government closest to the individual, thereby maximizing the individual's access to his sway representatives regarding the nature and space of these intrusions.

I claim that the situation we have devolv to athwart the most recent 70 years of our country's history, in which our collective interest for our fellow man is supposedly manifested by means of a so-called progressive federal income tax classification is a welling but ill-fated contortion of the method I do not object to dedicating a portion of my income each year to the betterment of those les fortunate than myself. Rather, my questions in this area have more to do with the rationality of asking me to entrust that same portion of my income to the federal tier of our regulation system, for the nominal end of implementing social programs that I believe were not at all intended to be under the purview of that [i]finale[/i] of the government in the first place.

Michael C Winterbottom

Colorado Springs

Writer confuses taxation with personal charity

Donald Porter argued that Jesus supported taxes to care for the poor from telling a would-be follower to give to the poor. Porter missed the elucidation distinction between taking and giving. Jesus didn't call for taxes to support the poor; he advocated voluntary action.

Porter then tried to justify taxes for income redistribution by dint of saying there is no choice. He says we ne unemployment to avoid inflation and we ne income redistribution to compensate the unemploy This argument fails for sum of two units reasons.

First, it wins the economics wrong. It's quite possible to maintain cheap inflation and strong employment at the same time, as has been demonstrated in new U.S. economic history. Second, Porter again relies forward taking, yet forgets about giving. nation can and do give voluntarily.

Porter also tried to disavow the threat of government force behind tax collection. It is genuine that most people pay their taxes before they are forced to pay. nevertheless this doesn't mean the threat is absent; it means the threat is effective.

Paul Gilbert

Manitou Springs

ART forward THE ARK

Christo draw would have negative impact in residents

I am a full-time flyfishing guide. I live and work onward the Arkansas River. My intelligent concerns about the Cristo "Over the River" cast include the multiple environmental impacts, the damage to the quality of the canyon as a destination fishery, the safety of family and wildlife, and the personal and community economic impacts.

I'm not against the Cristo plan as art. I am, however, adamantly establish against the location. The pair weeks of display I could deal with. It's the years of construction and dismantling that is the deal-breaker.

At undivided public meeting, Cristo said commuting delays are "not a serious question." Jeanne-Claude called personal economic make anxiouss "petty demands."

My work at jobs along the length of Bighorn Sheep Canyon is seasonal. I must make all my year's income within a scarcely any months. The two-week display is in the highly heart of my working season. That's not "petty" it's my livelihood.

During construction and display, I won't simply be delayed a not many minutes getting to "the office," the brew is in my office. Additionally, closing 300-400 feet of a lane brings this canyon to a standstill. Scores of workers like myself will be impeded in the performance of our piece of works during the entire time of setup display and disassembly.

Visitors to the Arkansas River canyon originate here to escape urban noise, pollution, traffic and hordes not get another dose of it. Flyfishers especially value this river for its relative solitude, quality fishing and extensive public access. Who wants to fish across from trains and construction?

This is urban art. If city-dwelling businesses and politicians support this concoct so much, then have it in Caon City, Pueblo or a certain number of other urban locale. Do not impose it forward an outdoor environment whose natural beauty is sought after for its admit value, and whose economy is based onward protecting that value.

Carol Neville

Caon City

TEACHER SHORTAGE?

There's a difference between knowing, teaching