Mailbag

A Fan of Taxing Rich People Less Makes His Case

In the hubbub of the budget crisis, the Arizona House and Senate
agreed to provisions of a “flat tax.” Although the deal was killed, I
am glad to see the conversation getting attention (“Another Republican
Triumph: Help the Rich, Screw the Poor,” The Skinny, July 2).

The progressive—more appropriately called the
“deterrent”—income-tax system that Arizona boasts is
counter-productive to current and potential taxpayers. Arizona
currently has five income-tax rates, with the “penalty” increasing
based on one’s level of income. The “flat tax” or “flat rate” is not a
great plan, but far better than the current system.

By taking away the “penalties” of success, a flat-rate income tax
provides incentive to succeed. For example, if I work hard to make
$2,000 a year, it is taxed at 5 percent; if I work harder to make
$4,000, it is taxed at 10 percent. Where is the incentive to work
harder, create jobs, etc.?

A flat rate would level the playing field and, in effect, cut the
taxes of more than 50 percent of Arizona taxpayers. More than that, an
equal rate done correctly encourages much-needed growth and expansion
in our economy.

We are likely to see a nationwide push toward tax-policy reform. It
is an extremely timely discussion, considering most states’ financial
woes and the federal government’s extreme abuse of public funds. The
last thing we need is for Arizona to follow in California’s footsteps
and become victim to the pitfalls of overregulation and taxation.

If there is one ray of sunshine to come out of this legislative
session, it’s shedding some light on this issue.

Troy Hyde

Claim: Jonathan Paton’s Nonpartisan-Elections Push Is a Bush-Like
Power Grab!

In defiance of Tucsonans’ 1992 rejection of a similar proposal, the
Arizona Legislature has—along party lines—passed Senate
Bill 1123, forcing us to use nonpartisan ballots in city elections.
Despite their best efforts, state legislators have failed to provide a
colorable reason for a state interest in our ballots, or to justify
even proposing such a bill.

As you reminded us (“Who Gives a Crap?” June 25), Tucson/Pima County
is the biggest blue pocket of Arizona, and Tucsonans are
low-information voters when it comes to City Council elections. We can
surmise that in city elections, many Tucsonans vote for their
party—and we know that many of them are Democrats. Without party
information, we would expect low-information votes to be more evenly
distributed between the parties, benefiting the party with fewer voters
of its own.

We have to conclude that SB 1123 is nothing more or less than a move
by the majority party to defeat party-line voting in our City Council
elections, consolidate its power in Southern Arizona, and even improve
its chances of carrying future statewide (even national) elections and
decisions.

What’s next? Gerrymandering Tucson (like Texas) into little patches
of Democratic influence, embedded in and overwhelmed by Republican
strongholds?

We have had more than a decade to watch how a determined party, once
in power, can largely eradicate opposition and run roughshod over
constitutional rights. If we let it happen here, we can’t say we
weren’t warned.

Mary Wilson

Sex-Offender Laws Often Lead to Scapegoating and a False Sense of
Security

T. Vaughn Henry’s guest commentary on the “sexting epidemic” (July
9) made some good points. Megan’s Law, although designed to promote
safety from sex offenders, misses the mark. Providing child education,
parental guidance and treatment for offenders would be a more effective
use of taxpayers’ money.

The law’s effort to prevent crime actually encourages it. Citizens,
including past prison inmates, have a right to feel safe. But the
online registries and community notifications the law requires can
result in assaults on offenders and their families, and murder and
suicide of and by registrants, according to a 2007 report from Human
Rights Watch. These tracking methods make them outcasts who have
difficulty finding places to live and work. These are factors which can
promote reoffending by promoting secrecy and social withdrawal.

The law also provides a false sense of security. Since 68 percent of
child sexual abuse is never reported, the police can’t possibly be
aware of and notify us of every sex offender living in our community.
Child sexual abuse is usually committed by someone the family knows and
trusts, states advocacy-group Stop It Now (www.stopitnow.com).

There are other factors at play, too. We live in a society that
markets products to 8-, 9- and 10-year-olds based on sex appeal. Kids
learn they should want to be sexy, but don’t know enough at that age to
handle their sexuality. Parents and caregivers need to make it safe to
talk about sexuality at home, so if a child is approached, they know
how to avoid abuse.

Of course, offenders should be held responsible for their actions.
But they are also treated as scapegoats for larger, unaddressed issues
in our society. Even murderers are not required to continue to pay the
consequences of their crime after their prison sentences end.

Organizations like Stop It Now offer sane, effective solutions for
victims, offenders and the general public. Efforts such as these can
truly promote the public’s safety.

Anne M. Dalton

This article appears in Jul 30 – Aug 5, 2009.