ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 9, 1997 TAG: 9702120005
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
The food tax is fairer than many taxes
YOUR EDITORIAL staff continues to agitate for repeal of the sales tax on food (Jan. 27 editorial, ``Food tax is on the table''). Why? This tax is probably the only fair one levied by the state. Everybody has to eat, so everybody pays the food tax. In fact, this is the only major tax some people pay. And this tax can be avoided to a great extent by selective buying and by growing and preparing your own food.
Try that on heating oil, electricity, natural gas or gasoline. Taxes on all these necessities are also regressive, but that hasn't stopped you from advocating an additional 50 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline. In fact, I am a surprised that, unlike most Democrats, you have found a tax you don't like. If you must have a tax to rail against, how about considering awful personal-property or real-estate taxes that increase regularly?
I am retired and live on a very limited income. Contrary to your staff's assumption that most old people are rolling in money, I am not and neither are any of my older friends. However, I don't mind paying a tax that I feel is fair, and the food tax is one of the few that qualifies.
Just what would replace the lost revenue if the food tax were repealed? Soak the rich with an income-tax increase? The most likely result would be an increase in the remaining sales tax on other items - another tax burden on people who work or are retired. The state isn't going to give up millions of dollars.
Without the food tax, all those who make their money under the table - drug dealers, bootleggers, thieves - would get off tax-free.
As far as your concern for so-called poor people, most are getting food stamps, which aren't taxed. And those states that exempt food from the sales tax? Check their other taxes, and you will see how they can afford it.
RAYMOND A. SIMMONS
ROANOKE
Abortion isn't an economic issue
IN RESPONSE to Martin Willis' Jan. 25 letter to the editor, ``More unwanted children won't benefit the economy'':
He is completely missing the point. We cannot quantify human life in economic terms.
Sanctity of Life Sunday was Jan. 26 at many churches across the nation. We had special prayer for the unborn and for the women who have had an abortion. As I looked around at the children in the sanctuary, I was so grateful to God for giving them life and to their parents for ``choosing'' life.
Using Willis' twisted logic, why doesn't he round up all the poor, handicapped and sick people - those he might deem to be a burden on the economy - and shoot them (or chemically burn or dismember them as abortionists do)?
My mother once told me that I, the third child, was unplanned. Was I unloved? No! Am I a burden on the economy? No!
I commend Willis for wanting to make donations, but I recommend that he contribute to positive, life-affirming organizations such as his church and the Crisis Pregnancy Center instead of to Planned Unparenthood.
I just thank God that 2,000 years ago a single, pregnant woman named Mary did not choose abortion.
LESLIE COTY
ROANOKE
Suing at the drop of a connection
FOR SEVERAL weeks now, the media have run repeated articles about the problems with America Online and the lawsuits subscribers have threatened to file or have filed in response. Once again, we see that civility and common sense are no longer the norm in our society. Every ill, every slight, every inconvenience - real or imagined - becomes justification to file a lawsuit and to recover damages.
Worse still, the media report these events as if the very fact of a suit or a settlement established the merit of the claim. Rarely, if ever, do the reports provide evidence of the validity of the suits filed - or even suggest the potential lack of merit.
Well, if you wish proof of the lack of merit to the American Online suits, here it is: I am sending this letter via E-mail through America Online, having connected to the system on my first try. Yes, occasionally I have encountered a busy signal or a dropped connection in the past, but nothing worth going to court over. I doubt any other subscriber can show a breach of contract or fraud, either. Still, the suits and settlements go on.
Perhaps I'll sue The Roanoke Times the next snowy morning my newspaper doesn't arrive at the usual time.
JOHN S. KOEHLER
ROANOKE
Criticism of zoo is unwarranted
JOE KENNEDY'S comments (Jan. 22 column, ``Let's not tarnish our shining star: Mill Mountain'') on Mill Mountain Zoo was very confusing to me, a blue-collar worker who lives outside the Roanoke area.
For the past eight years, my wife and I have supported the zoo and have done some volunteer work for it. Kennedy says the zoo adds little to the mountain. If this is true, why has it been successful in every fund-raising drive for improvements? These projects have drawn regular visitors and bus loads of students from all over Southwest Virginia and parts of southern West Virginia. If these exhibits added little to the mountain, the zoo would have closed years ago.
He also states that having the zoo's board members on the Mill Mountain Development Committee could be a conflict of interest. Could it maybe just be that it is in Roanoke's best interest to have people involved with the zoo on this committee? For example, Beth Poff, the director of Mill Mountain Zoo, and the zoo staff have worked tirelessly to upgrade the zoo over the past several years. Because of their efforts, some famous national celebrities have promoted the zoo on television.
For the zoo to request 1.5 acres of land to expand an educational exhibit isn't asking for the moon - just a small area near the zoo's present office location.
I think it's time to stop telling the zoo to move somewhere else. Instead, everyone in Roanoke and Southwest Virginia who believes in wildlife conservation and education should thank Poff and the zoo's staff for giving their all for this facility. They have transformed it into the first-class operation that it now is. Give them a helping hand instead of criticism.
JOHN KINNEY JR.
NARROWS
Silly options do not help teachers
AS A teacher, I am tired of hearing from people who have not spent any meaningful time inside school buildings in years. To take one incident (coffee drinking) and paint all teachers with it smacks of ignorance. For all anyone knows, a person seen drinking coffee was a visiting supervisor for student teachers.
All professions have their problems, but if Douglas Chandler Graham (Jan. 25 letter to the editor, ``Teachers: quit griping or just quit'') or Jeffrey T. Morris (Jan. 8 letter, ``Be thankful for any salary raise'') wish to speak with any real authority, they should spend some real time in public schools.
If they don't like the finished product, they need to take a long hard look at the raw materials that come through our doors - loaded with all the negative influences that schools have little or no control over.
``Just quit'' is a silly, shortsighted, unrealistic response to a complex problem, and is not an option for many working people. I've had my car vandalized during the school day, and the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System is just that - supplemental. I do not eat school lunches. Health coverage is mediocre. I work 12 months in 91/2 months. And my ``union'' does nothing for me if I lose a lawsuit. Even if I were cleared in court, I can still get fired. But I have few other options in this area, as is true for many others in my situation.
Instead of being part of the problem, I challenge Graham and Morris to volunteer in their schools and be part of the solution. They just might learn something. I know neither of them would consider doing the job for a starting teacher's pay, and I suspect, judging from the tone of their letters, they couldn't do the job. They would be frustrated in no time.
E. ANNE PAULL
TROUTVILLE
LENGTH: Long : 145 linesby CNB