Fax to Congressman Roskam 12 16 10



Fax to Peter Roskam Opposing Bush Tax Cut Compromise

December 16, 2010

The Honorable Congressman Peter Roskam
Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Roskam:

Please vote against the compromise about extending the Bush tax cuts. I am opposed to for the following reasons:

  • Those earning over $250,000 generally do not need a tax cut. In particular, those earning over $1 million definitely do not need a tax cut. Experience shows that the affluent tend to save extra income rather than spend it. Thus, giving those people extra money has only a minor stimulus to the economy and, worse than that, it adds significantly to our national debt.
  • The estate tax limit and rate are unreasonably generous. The very wealthy tend to buy and hold stocks during their lifetime. Therefore, they are likely to have very significant capital gains at the time of their death. They then get to pass those stocks on to the next generation without contributing anything to the common good by way of taxes. This can go on generation after generation. If you do not wish to limit the estate tax provisions what would you think of he substituting a provision that at death the deceased's estate pay income tax on all capital gains?
  • Roughly one in three workers, including all workers making less than $20,000 per year, will get a tax increase —and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal. That is because the Making Work Pay tax credit has been replaced by a reduction in employee's Social Security withholding rate. It is a regressive change that benefits those with higher earnings to the detriment of those with lower earnings.
  • In addition, I strongly oppose the precedent of cutting payroll taxes even if made up from general revenue. One of my college professors was Edwin E. Witty, the Executive Director of the committee that drafted the original Social Security law. One of the critical aspects in the design of the law was that, because the employees shared in the cost of the program, it became an earned right, not welfare. If you are interested in doing away with the Social Security program, the best way is to convert it into a welfare program. Those can then easily be severely restricted or eliminated. Cutting payroll taxes makes Social Security partially a welfare program and, thus, I opposed that aspect of the Bush tax cut compromise.

Will At this late date I am sure it is too late to modify the compromise legislation to deal with any or all of the areas to which I object. Thus, I ask you to vote against the compromise even if it means all taxes will go up on January 1. I am sure Congress would promptly act to restore tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The other issues could then be dealt with on their merits.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

R. Kent Kirkwood
317 S. Edward Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
(847) 392-5644
rkentkirkwood@wowway.com



Table of Contents

Home

Cutting taxes primary cause of national debt

Bibliography

An Appeal to Conservative Republicans

Fax to Peter Roskam Opposing Bush Tax Cut Compromise

How to End the Filibuster

All You Need Know About American Politics

Email to MoveOn_Org on Low Taxes for the Rich

Taxing the Super Rich

In defense of government