ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, March 1, 1997 TAG: 9703030006
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
Rich, poor pay the same food tax
HAVING read your Feb. 24 editorial, ``Virginia's food tax is unfair,'' nobody could argue that the sales tax would be a nice tax to eliminate. It would be even better to eliminate taxes altogether. However, even irresponsible liberals now agree that we must pay for the services we expect.
Your premise that the sales tax is unfair is due to the fact that both rich and poor pay the same amount on each dollar of groceries purchased. Funny, but that premise doesn't sound unfair at all. We all pay exactly the same, no matter who or what we are.
To make up the difference, you propose a new tax. I thought most intelligent people had come to realize that we just can't continue to tax, tax, tax. This is just another example of liberal dogma that has fallen out of favor with the informed and responsible public.
You say the property tax is progressive. If I'm not mistaken, each person pays a tax based on what his or her property is worth, not on what he or she makes. This doesn't sound progressive, but basically fair - if there is such a thing as a fair tax.
As a health-care worker, I agree that tobacco should be taxed, taxed and then taxed some more. Tobacco-related illness drains the health-care dollar pool. However, wouldn't increasing taxes on gasoline put an unfair burden on the working poor you so gallantly try to defend?
Eliminating the sales tax would eliminate a lot of monies for the state treasury. I propose that we replace these monies by levying a tax on each word that a bleeding-heart liberal editor uses in his or her editorials to promote their worn-out liberal views. Now there's a progressive tax!
JACK M. ALLARA II
ROANOKE
Lincoln created a false impression
IN RESPONSE to the Feb. 9 news article (``Symbols of Old South split races'') about Civil War memorials and the Confederate flag being symbols of racism:
I disagree with this because slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The cause was the issue of states' rights. At the time, the South was being imposed upon by the North and its policies.
Before the ``War of Northern Aggression,'' there were major differences between the North and the South. The North was more industrialized and more urban. The South wasn't very industrialized, but had a lot of agriculture. This was a major difference, considering the high tariffs the Northerners passed in Congress. This hurt the South because it was harder to export its crops. The Southern states wanted more rights, and that's why they seceded.
I disagree with Nelson Rivers III who said, ``The No. 1 lie you hear is that the Civil War was not about slavery.''
The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, but many people erroneously believe this because of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He issued this proclamation because he wanted to make it seem like it was a war over slavery. He wanted to make sure that European countries didn't acknowledge the Confederate States of America. Lincoln knew that if the Civil War sounded as if it were being fought over slavery, then the European countries wouldn't acknowledge the CSA.
The Southern social structure in 1860 amazes most people. Many do not realize that approximately 76 percent of Southerners didn't own slaves. Slave owners who had fewer than 10 slaves made up 17 percent of the Southern population. Slave owners with more than 100 slaves comprised only a small percentage of the South's population.
CHRIS ALMOND
CHRISTIANSBURG
For home closings, forget the lawyers
I NEVER used a lawyer at a real-estate closing until I moved to Virginia.
When I bought my house here, I had the privilege of paying a lawyer $350 to sit in on my closing and do nothing. However, several hours after the closing, the lawyer's office called to tell me it had miscalculated and that an additional $750 was needed to complete the closing. I told the lawyer that he was responsible for his work and should pay the difference. He said no, and pointed out that I had signed a document saying that I would pay for all calculation errors. I might point out that this lawyer had vast real-estate experience.
I think title companies should be the only ones allowed to do real-estate transactions since it's their only job. I would be willing to pay extra at a closing for an accountant instead of a lawyer who cannot add.
DONALD PRICE
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Medium: 86 linesby CNB