This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Again I feel compelled to write in. I just can't help myself when it comes to this topic. I think that Mike Edmonds and Billy Hesterman made some great points ("Try these tax changes instead of raising income tax," Jan. 22). Especially by first addressing the negative impact raising income tax would have on everyone across the board, and also stating (what has already been proven in other states) that businesses often look at income tax rates when deciding where to locate their establishments.
It makes sense. It's a no brainer. You want to place your businesses where people have more money to spend on your goods or services.
Edmonds' and Hesterman's first choice on how to increase funds for education probably will not go over well in this state, but too bad: It is the most logical and the most fair. We all have the right to pursue happiness as long as we don't expect others to pay for it. So, as the article goes on to state, "Due to Utah's dependent exemption, the more children a household has in the public education system, the less that household is paying for its children's education." What? Did we all not get that? How did that slide through? That is where this whole issue should stop right there.
Hmmm ... so maybe that should also mean, in theory, that the more houses I own, the less property tax I pay? Or, maybe, the more vehicles I own the less registration fees and taxes I should pay? Or the more pets that I own the less their registration and licensing should cost me? I think you get the idea, it's not rocket science. The more you have the more you pay, just like the rest of us.
I agree for the good of society a well-educated populace is essential and there are a few exemptions for those that life has simply not been kind to. We do have to keep our compassion in this equation. Which leads me to: As I don't have children and my wife and I chose not to, shouldn't we get a tax break for not burdening the system? After all, we are showing compassion in not burdening an already over-populated planet.
Again, we don't mind contributing for those that are truly in need, but for those individuals whose pursuit of happiness means having a large family, then they should pay for that form of happiness, and not expect the rest of us to. Agreed, the education system does need an overhaul so that funds are not wasted. So, as our taxpayer association members stated in the article: "If taxpayers are to make this significant investment, it needs to be done in a targeted manner." Well, there it is. Target those that have the children that are in the system. Pretty simple, huh?
Mike Ramirez
West Jordan