Let’s review, and add up all the taxes
Put the city utility tax proposal in perspective: tax and spend, tax …
Dear Editor,
We are fast approaching the “New Tax Day” – excuse me, I meant to say Election Day. A time when new taxes are added and we are told, “It’s just a small cost to cover the shortages.” Shortages, you see, are never ending because they are the natural byproduct of “funding” (“unearned” money taken from you through taxes). Tax-provided funding isn’t the solution, because the problem is rooted in lavish, poorly controlled “spending.”
Governments cannot seem to resist trying to solve our problems by raising our taxes, rather than controlling their excessive spending. Try that with your home budget. The next time you want something you cannot afford, tell your boss you are raising your salary.
Years ago an excise tax expired and the city contemplated picking up that tax with a 5 percent utility tax (on cable TV, telephones, gas and electric, water, sewer and garbage, etc.) an option the law provided for. The mayor at that time informed the Chamber of Commerce that the city was only picking up the option to prevent another government agency from picking it up, but that the city did not intend to impose it. Six months later, the tax was imposed on the residents.
On this next “New Tax Day”, we’ll be asked to approve a “reduction” of the 5 percent utility tax to 4.5 percent and add a communication user’s tax (cell phones). Where will this stop … emails?, sending letters?, talking in public? This is a broad tax which can extend far beyond what it appears to be. This “reduction” is surely to become an “increase”.
Bonds, fees, assessments and taxes (all translated “taxes”) plague citizens unrelentingly. “Just a little here and a little more there.”
Consider my previous letter outlining numerous taxes already paid by taxpayers. The average married couple in Silicon Valley pays a 35 percent federal income tax; about 7 percent state income taxes; 7.5 percent social security (employers pay another 7.5 percent); and unemployment taxes – approximately 50 percent – is taken before they bring their earnings home. Add to this, property taxes; a huge 8.25 percent sales tax; auto license and registration taxes; 50-cent-per-gallon gas taxes; excise taxes, utility and various other taxes.
If this isn’t enough, in a couple of years, social Democrats in Washington intend to raise the death/inheritance tax, which needs to be abolished, not raised.
Therefore, I propose adopting two new Holy-Days: “Cut Excessive Government Spending Day” and “Tax Reduction Day.”
Why, if adopted, people would dance in the streets and fire off skyrockets the way Gilroy traditionally celebrates the Fourth of July!
You, the citizen, can do this – you vote.
Jim Langdon, Gilroy
Safe-and-sane fireworks sales: where does the candidate stand?
Dear Editor,
Bob Dillon is running again for a city council seat and The Dispatch has endorsed him.
The public should know he is against safe-and-sane fireworks in Gilroy.
The sale of safe-and-sane fireworks supports 12 to 14 non-profit groups in Gilroy that helps keep our kids off the streets! Where does Dillon want these groups to raise funds that he would like to remove?
Bob Dillon where do you stand? Gilroy voters want to know!
Steve Owen, Gilroy
Clear that council candidateTim Day didn’t have any conflict
Dear Editor,
Shame on the Dispatch!
I felt it was very irresponsible for the Dispatch to run a very unfair article concerning city council candidate Tim Day’s vote on the annexation of the Mormon church’s land to the city. I have known him for more than 10 years and worked with him on various projects to benefit the residents of Gilroy and the city. Never has Day voted for or looked at any event or project that benefited his church, his family or himself. The Gilroy Chamber of Commerce voted him the 2006 Man of the Year for his involvement in the community.
Day has devoted untold hours, without compensation, with the sole purpose of making Gilroy a better place for all of us to live and raise our families. The article grabbed the headline, but after reading the article there is no substance or any hint of a conflict or self dealing. Day believes that every private citizen has a public responsibility.
There are many challenges facing Gilroy and to place this article on the front page that besmirches Day’s integrity without any findings that he voted improperly is terrible journalism. After reading the article one concludes that his vote was proper because he did nothing wrong!
Bruce Williams, Gilroy
