Understand this. Corporations are not taxpayers. Corporations are tax collectors.
Increases in the corporate tax are passed on to consumers as higher prices, and to shareholders as lower dividends. And many of these shareholders are retirement plans on which retirees depend for their income. So increasing the corporate tax impacts the very people, average Joe consumers and retirees whom politicians say they want to protect.
The solution? Abolish the corporate tax and increase the individual income tax on the executives at a these corporations. That way, these executives, presumably in the $400,000-plus annual income category, will be made to pay their "fair share," whatever that means, while those of more modest means will not be burdened.
Robert Ranney, Omaha
I'm curious, has the Biden administration passed out enough money to buy your vote in the next election?
Where do you think the money comes from? Interestingly, in the OWH today the article headlined "Biden Outlines his plan to revamp infrastructure" continuing on page A6 is the plan to lift corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%. The next paragraph says, "Ninety-one Fortune 500 companies, including Amazon, pay not a single, solitary penny in income tax."
If they already don't pay the 21% assessment, what in the world makes you think they will pay 28%?
Remember when Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more in income tax than he did? Which category are you in, Warren Buffet's or his secretary?
Brenda Ray, Fremont
Guns, facts, rights
Donovan Huwaldt (Pulse, April 1), an apparent former hunter, calls for laws "protecting humans as we do pheasants" and uses an analogy comparing plugging a shotgun's magazine to limit the firearm to three shells. This regulation applies when hunting migratory birds such as doves, ducks and geese, not upland game such as pheasants.
I suppose Huwaldt supports lower magazine-round limits for firearms, one of the many things Biden and other antigun folks are calling for along with banning all semiautomatic-action firearms and repealing the Second Amendment. Biden's outright ignorance regarding firearms is well documented, similarly to wealthy fellow supporters such as Michael Bloomberg, who has claimed that a "good hunter" needs no more than one or two rounds to bag a deer, for example. That statement supports what the UK has done in banning all firearms except one- or two-shot "long guns," be they rifles or shotguns.
Facts don't matter to the antigun crowd, and folks like Huwaldt who claim a hunting background to buttress their arguments play to many good citizens who do not use firearms for hunting, shooting sports or personal safety.
Ironically, wealthy antigunners do support the Second Amendment; they have armed security folks accompany them as they seek to deny the rest of us American citizens our freedom of choice regarding the lawful use of firearms.
Scott Yahnke, Bennington
Donivan Humwaldt (Pulse, April 1) is misinformed regarding the requirement that shotguns are limited to three shells to hunt pheasants. In Nebraska no such limit exists. Depending on the source referenced, it appears that the three-shell limit was originally either a compromise imposed to even the playing field for manufacturers of double barrel guns versus the newfangled pump guns, or the result of lobbying by waterfowl market hunters that wanted to limit the advantage the new guns would have over their old double barrels.
Paul Trout, Omaha
I could write an essay on why I think you should vote for Mayor Stothert. Simply put, as someone born and raised here, I know Omaha. From elementary school at 50th and Ames, to middle school out west on to UNO and Creighton, I know Omaha. I’ve grown up here. Living, learning and working here along. So without any doubt, I know Mayor Jean Stothert is the best choice for Omaha.
Adam Wacker, Omaha
In the next couple of months, voters will be going to the polls to vote for a mayor and members of the Omaha City Council. The Omaha City Council election is deemed as a "nonpartisan" election. In other words, a candidate is not required to disclose which political party they belong too, or which political party is backing them. It would seem that the way this country is going nowadays, knowing what political party a candidate belongs too would be one of the most important issues that a voter would want to know.
The mask mandate has been in place since August 2020. If you look at the four member of the city council that keep extending the mandate, you'll see that they are following Joe Biden's playbook.
Voters need to research each candidate in their district to see what political party is backing them.
Don't let Omaha be turned into a "blue city." You see on the news every night what is happening in those cities.
Fred Wolf, Omaha
Republicans and conservatives, after bruising election losses, continue to push that our voting laws need to be changed due to voter fraud, yet they provide no actual proof whatsoever that any voter fraud exists or has existed in our democratic processes. Our elections have been free and fair elections. They perpetuate fear where there is none. Power is everything to them, and they will stop at nothing to get and maintain it, even at the sacrificial alter of our most treasured and foundational democratic principle -- the right to vote.
In the words of the wise astrophysicist Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Well, there is no evidence of voter fraud, period. Like my grandma used to say: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Wise advice!
Michael Leonard, Omaha
It is obvious in Ms. Leitch's March 31 letter that she doesn't know those of us who send our children to a parochial school pay tuition to do so. There are also ways set up to help pay for people who cannot afford full tuition. On top of that expense, we still pay taxes which go to educating students in public school. Where is, as she states, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" happening?
Shirley Kremla, Omaha