Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, September 6, 1993 TAG: 9309290305
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Let's compare typical tax burdens of Mike the plumber and John the retiree. Mike is self-employed with a wife and a young child. He has a mortgage on a modest house, has no bank savings, does not carry medical insurance, and hopes to send his child to college some day. He nets $24,000 from his plumbing business. In 1992, he paid a total of $4,805 to the Internal Revenue Service (self-employment and income taxes) and $701 in Virginia state taxes, for a total of $5,506, or 22.94 percent of his income.
John and his wife are retired. Their house is paid for. Medicare covers catastrophic medical expenses. Their $24,000 income comes from their pensions ($22,000) and a bank certificate ($2,000). In addition, they receive $16,000 in Social Security payments, making their total income $40,000. In 1992, they paid $1,804 to the IRS and $146 to the state, for a total of $1,950, or 4.875 percent of their income. Clinton's new tax law will not affect them; only wealthier Social Security recipients will see a higher tax.
Had Mike's income from his plumbing business been $40,000 (that is, comparable to John's annual income), his tax bill would have been $10,910, or 51/2 times John's.
The differences in their tax burdens and familial responsibilities are striking. Who is lobbying for Mike?
GRETA McCAUGHRIN
LEXINGTON
\ Politics needn't sink low MANY THANKS for your fine editorials - Aug. 31, "Democrats' polls: a study in sleaze," and Sept. 1, "Sleaze in Salem (continued)" - concerning the crude efforts by Howard Packett's campaign to condemn Morgan Griffith for his clients.
No person needs a good lawyer more than a guilty man. Morgan Griffith, like all good lawyers, takes cases that come through his door. There is nothing shameful about an attorney representing a child molester, a thief or a mugger. Such is the nature of our legal system, and all attorneys are expected to take cases that come their way. It would be an unspeakable wrong to deprive a defendant - whether guilty or not - of legal counsel.
I have represented folks charged with crimes as bad or worse than were Griffith's clients. I have run for office twice, but neither of my honored opponents, Messrs. Woodrum or Crush, ever sunk so low as has Packett. Politics may be a dirty business, but his tactics are beyond the pale.
Your editorials represented a reasoned effort to keep this political campaign on an even keel, and I applaud you for this.
MARC J. SMALL
ROANOKE
\ Crediting the wrong German inventor
EDITORIAL writer Geoff Seamans was somewhat sloppy in his Aug. 22 column, "After 5,000 years, computers have an impact." I'll focus only on his assertion that in 1876 Niklaus August Otto of Germany had developed a self-propelled vehicle with a four-stroke gasoline-powered engine.
It's true that Otto built a four-stroke cycle engine in 1876 and was granted a patent for it. The cycle is known as the Otto cycle, taught in all engineering schools, and is the basis of internal-combustion engines used in virtually all automobiles today.
As important as the cycle was in sparking the development of automobiles, credit for building the first automobiles driven by an internal-combustion engine must be given to German engineers Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, who accomplished this independently, neither being aware of the other's existence.
Benz built the first automobile in 1885, a three-wheeled vehicle specifically designed to be propelled by his internal-combustion gasoline engine. He received a patent for the car in January 1886.
Also in 1886, German inventor Daimler designed a four-stroke cycle engine and placed it in a four-wheel carriage that had been designed to be drawn by horses. His partner, Wilhelm Maybach, another German inventor, made significant improvements in the performance of Daimler's engine.
Ultimately, the Benz and Daimler companies merged in 1926 to form Daimler-Benz AG, maker of the Mercedes-Benz car.
KARL A. SENSE
GALAX
\ Abstinence is best option
I WANT TO clear up a misconception. Abstinence teaching in our school systems in no way violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Many who are against this teaching say it has no place in the schools because it's taught in the Bible, as well as in many religious circles. However, abstinence is more than just a religious perspective. It's also a medical, psychological, sociological and moral issue.
Schools teach that stealing, rape, murder and other acts harmful to the individual and others are wrong. These are taught by religious groups also. So, why shouldn't the schools teach abstinence?
In the schools' sex education, young people are getting mixed signals. In most areas, abstinence, if taught at all, is presented as one of several options. It's not taught as the f+ibesto option. To a young person, this is saying that it's OK to have sex. I encourage parents to look into what their child's school is teaching. Parents can change what children are being taught. The sex-education material is not working; it's time for a change.
J. DONALD EARWOOD JR.
ROANOKE
\ Rudeness is out of line
I APPLAUD the Aug. 27 letter, entitled "Compassion is needed" by Lenora Graham, regarding food stamps.
I get $37 a month in food stamps. I dress nice on the little money I get by using layaway plans and taking family castoffs. When I pull out my food stamps, people stare rudely and the cashiers turn cold and sometimes act rude.
Please give us a break! We don't need your rudeness on top of our other problems.
ELLA SNYDER
BLACKSBURG
by CNB