The form letter opposes the bill, so it deliberately neglects to mention that the tax raise isn't across the board. It may be written to scare people into thinking that their taxes will go up, so quick! write and oppose! Like Nancy H., I wonder who prepared the letter.
On a larger issue, this type of tactic seems to be common. I received a screaming scare e-mail urging me to oppose the ethnic studies bill. So I looked up the bill, which contains NOTHING that the e-mail claimed it did. I had some issues with the bill, and I wrote to my representative (who is terrific) who is one of the sponsors. But it was another "oppose this horrible bill that's going to destroy society" scare. What if. . . what if. . . and this state did this. . . and this state did that. . . (one of these states, in fact, addressed many of the issues the scare tactics raised, but that doesn't count, I guess).
My gratitude again to Steve for his thoroughness and accuracy.
Wish I could have been there to testify, but had another hearing. Glad the speakers made the case for taxing the rich. The one thing that never gets enoufgh notice is that taxoing the rich is highly correlated with better economic outcomes for the community, with reductions in poverty going along with reducing the sky high wealth of the few. When those with the least do okay, get by, have a roof over their heads and enough to eat, the entire societty benefits, with reduced expenditures for violence and emergencies as well as reduced expenditures for social services, and this always translates into more commerce. You would have thought the educated rich would have figured this out considering how often it has proven to be true, but the rich still do not seem to want to get it. Capitalism works best when the rich are reined in.
Who prepared that form letter? It makes it sound, intentionally I presume, like the bill would raise taxes across the board. I wonder how many of those who signed it were unaware that the proposed increase would only be on the top 1%.
The form letter opposes the bill, so it deliberately neglects to mention that the tax raise isn't across the board. It may be written to scare people into thinking that their taxes will go up, so quick! write and oppose! Like Nancy H., I wonder who prepared the letter.
On a larger issue, this type of tactic seems to be common. I received a screaming scare e-mail urging me to oppose the ethnic studies bill. So I looked up the bill, which contains NOTHING that the e-mail claimed it did. I had some issues with the bill, and I wrote to my representative (who is terrific) who is one of the sponsors. But it was another "oppose this horrible bill that's going to destroy society" scare. What if. . . what if. . . and this state did this. . . and this state did that. . . (one of these states, in fact, addressed many of the issues the scare tactics raised, but that doesn't count, I guess).
My gratitude again to Steve for his thoroughness and accuracy.
Wish I could have been there to testify, but had another hearing. Glad the speakers made the case for taxing the rich. The one thing that never gets enoufgh notice is that taxoing the rich is highly correlated with better economic outcomes for the community, with reductions in poverty going along with reducing the sky high wealth of the few. When those with the least do okay, get by, have a roof over their heads and enough to eat, the entire societty benefits, with reduced expenditures for violence and emergencies as well as reduced expenditures for social services, and this always translates into more commerce. You would have thought the educated rich would have figured this out considering how often it has proven to be true, but the rich still do not seem to want to get it. Capitalism works best when the rich are reined in.
Nancy H is right that the for letter misses the point, the opponents are hardly thinking of the single mother!
If the Assembly doesn't pass some version of this it is going to be deeply disappointing, and disillusioning about Democrats
Who prepared that form letter? It makes it sound, intentionally I presume, like the bill would raise taxes across the board. I wonder how many of those who signed it were unaware that the proposed increase would only be on the top 1%.