ITEP's analysis of Pence tax plan would make Obama proud
Mike Pence’s proposed 10 percent income tax cut would bring relief to Hoosier taxpayers while also helping Indiana to better compete for jobs.
Not everyone shares these priorities.
The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) published a report that claims the proposed tax reduction is “unfair.” In their analysis, ITEP states a better policy would be to instead raise the personal exemption, which would help more lower-income Hoosiers and distribute tax relief fairly.
This criticism is misguided.
Somehow, a 10 percent reduction for all Hoosier taxpayers is considered unfair because 10 percent for some people is a greater number than 10 percent for some others. ITEP also believes it is unfair that those who do not pay income taxes would not receive any benefit. However, this, too, ignores the fact that a lower income tax would encourage economic activity and create jobs for all income levels.
This criticism is typical of the class warfare President Obama has repeatedly encouraged. While I am sure the president would approve of this analysis, Hoosiers know better and should not be surprised that a group that opposes most sensible tax relief plans opposes the Pence tax plan.
ITEP is a left-leaning organization that states its purpose as advancing “tax fairness and sustainability.” The organization supports a national online sales tax, dismisses that tax cuts can spur economic growth and specifically opposed Indiana eliminating its state inheritance tax. Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is a board member. Currently, Indiana ranks 11th in business tax climate, as measured by the Tax Foundation.
In terms of competing for more jobs and advancing economic freedom, tax rates are a key factor. By lowering its income tax rate, Indiana will be in a better position to compete for new industries and jobs.
Chase Downham, Indiana state director, Americans for Prosperity
NCAA piling on Penn State with penalties
I am upset about the child abuse committed by Jerry Sandusky and the cover-up by Paterno, Curley, Schulz and Spanier. The lives of many young children have been adversely impacted by these men.
And that is my point. The five individuals were involved with these tragic events, not the assistant football coaches, not the football players, not the faculty and not the student body.
I believe the NCAA president and executive board overstepped their authority by imposing very harsh penalties on the Penn State football program and by extension on the entire university. The penalties will needlessly decimate one of the premier athletic programs in the country and could debilitate the entire university.
If the leaders of a corporation (e.g. president, vice president) commit a crime, are the junior level managers and hourly workers punished? If a parent commits a crime, are his/her children punished for the crime?
The NCAA decided to use Penn State as a scapegoat example to thwart other university leaders from going astray. I think the NCAA should have stayed out of it and let the criminal and civil proceedings run their courses. The NCAA is persecuting innocent people.
Donald A. Moskowitz, The Pennsylvania State University, Class of 1963
Londonderry, N.H.
