Not SEALs — EODT
I’m calling about the Yukon story in the December 20 issue (City Lights: “Why the Yukon will Continue to Kill Divers,”) and how it kept referencing that the SEALs were the ones who placed the explosives on there. It wasn’t SEALs — it was Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technicians from San Diego.
Don Bauder is right to be disturbed by “corporate socialism,” but is apparently confused as to when it occurs (City Lights: “ResMed: Please Refuse to Play the Subsidy Game,” December 20). He lists “cash grants, loans, tax breaks, property tax abatements, income tax credits and/or exemptions, and free services.” Well, grants and free services indeed constitute a redistribution, as do state-sponsored loans and loan guarantees in the real world. But tax breaks, listed once or thrice, do not.
Under a sort of economic analysis that utterly disregards the question of who has legitimate claim to a property, a subsidy and a tax cut function equivalently. But one cannot coherently both disregard and make such claims at the same time, and socialism is a structure of ownership (or the advocacy thereof).
A tax cut only constitutes a redistribution on the presumption that the state has a prior claim to the property in question; that presumption is very much one of state socialism. And, even if one accepts that socialistic presumption, the fact is that any tax cut represents a move, however slight, in the direction of a perfectly non-socialist order in which all property is held individually, rather than by any sort of community.
If Mr. Bauder or anyone else wishes to object to preferential tax treatment, the objection must be raised on some other basis.
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Voting with Their Feet
Don Bauder was spot-on in the December 20 issue (City Lights: “ResMed: Please Refuse to Play the Subsidy Game”) in discouraging San Diego from subsidizing a business to stay. However, since most every city and state plays that game, we could lose the corporate headquarters and hundreds of high-paying ResMed workers and the taxes they pay if we don’t. How pure do we want to be here?
The bigger picture is how the high-tax, anti-business attitude of California government is driving jobs and middle-income taxpayers to friendlier states. ResMed’s CEO Peter Farrell pointed to the recent election results as a prime reason for considering the move, and who can blame him? We now will have a 13-percent state income tax (including even 2012 income) on the high-income entrepreneurs, aka job producers. Should we be surprised they are considering moving to a zero-income-tax state, like Nevada, Texas, or Washington?
When the employer adds in utility costs 50 percent higher than the national average, harassing state regulations, overpaid and overpensioned unionized public sector workers, and wasteful projects like high-speed rail, staying in California looks downright irresponsible. So, taxpayers and businesses are voting with their feet. As a result, we are losing middle-class families and wealthier taxpayers, and attracting tax-users such as welfare recipients from other states. California now has 33 percent of all welfare recipients in America, but only 12 percent of the population.
Employers and high income individuals look at economic and demographic trends in their decision-making and, for California, the trends do not look good. The recent election pushed our state government even further to the left. As these taxpayers leave, our fiscal problems will only worsen, and public services will only deteriorate.
Mr. Bauder is usually on target in his columns, but here he missed the bigger picture of why an employer may exit California. By the way, Mr. Bauder, not to be snarky, but are taxes part of the reason you moved from San Diego to more business-friendly Colorado a few years ago?
I started reading Diary of a Diva on page eight today (“Secret Agent: She’s Got the Goods,” December 20), a good story about a neighbor being possibly involved in counterfeit money operations, and at the bottom of page 8 it says “continued on page 41.” Well, there is no continuation on page 41, and now I want to know how this turns out.
What happened? A little eager to clothes shop for Christmas, resulting in an incomplete article? Will this be resolved in a future issue? We need to know.
The article was continued on page 42. We regret the error. — Editor
Reviewing the Reviewers
I’m calling regarding the restaurant reviews. I have to say that I really enjoy Ed Bedford’s reviews. He’s very informative. Without him I wouldn’t have thought to save some money at happy hour, and I find his mention of the lovely Carla quite charming.
On the other hand, we have Mr. Pike. I can read just a few paragraphs and know that it’s him. He comes across as a bloated, pompous, arrogant buffoon. Every place he goes is beneath him. I could go into detail, but everybody who reads his articles knows exactly what I am talking about. He mentions that he takes friends with him. I can’t even imagine being in the same room with him! Going out to dinner should be a pleasurable experience, without pointing out everything that’s wrong. Mr. Pike is just so nasty, constantly.
Now, Mr. Hernandez. I just hope he has a designated driver.