Letters: Wealth tax is money grab by another name

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Wealth tax is money grab by another name

Re: “High-stakes wealth tax proposal roils uber rich” (Page A1, Jan. 25).

A wealth tax on billionaires is a horrible idea. It is unconstitutional: a tax on wealth, not income.

It’s never enough. The taxers will soon return with a lower threshold and a higher rate. Consider the income tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, which were initially touted as affecting only the very wealthy at a low rate. Today?

Subsidizing health care creates artificially inflated demand, which can be resolved only by increased prices or shortages. Darien Schanske claims “this ($100 billion) is not some gigantic amount of money we’re asking for.” It’s big of him to claim, “It’s not a lot of money for people in this class,” evidence of the progressive mentality: You’ve earned it. You don’t need it. By force, I shall take it.

This is merely a desperate grab by a group threatened with loss of their gravy train.

Kenneth ImbodenSan Jose

Both sides of the aisle must tone down rhetoric

Re: “Lawmaker laments Trump’s ‘hateful rhetoric’ after attack” (Page A3, Jan. 29).

I agree with Ilhan Omar that President Trump should not “use hateful rhetoric” to talk about her and other politicians that he disagrees with. It is wrong, truly a bad look, and puts people at risk.

But it is unfortunately a two-way street. Hopefully those in her party and those on both sides of the aisle can learn that while inflaming the issues by conflating and labeling police, Border Patrol and officers of Homeland Security as Nazis or fascists and then to implore their followers to resist and attack, may make political points and headlines for them, it only riles up the mob and puts both officers and protesters at risk. Hopefully, she can recognize herself and others in this.

We can dream of a day when politicians on both sides of the aisle conduct themselves with dignity and respect for the thoughts and safety of others.

Dan ClevengerLos Altos Hills

Jayapal gets taste of how ICE is mistreated

Re: “Lawmaker laments Trump’s ‘hateful rhetoric’ after attack” (Page A3, Jan. 29).

I had to laugh at the comments by Rep. Pramila Jayapal in the article. After the recent attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar, she referred to an incident in 2022 of being threatened by someone showing up at her home. She states that “it has to stop, we are just trying to do our jobs.”

Maybe she has an idea of how the ICE agents in Minneapolis feel. Funny when the shoe is on the other foot.

Peggy RichardsonSanta Clara

State’s gun laws could be stronger

Did you know that in the United States, in 2023, someone died from gun violence every 11 minutes, according to John Hopkins?

According to the same source, in 2023, 46,728 people died by gun violence: 27,300 died by firearm suicide, 17,927 died by gun homicide, 463 died by unintentional gun injury and 604 were killed with guns by law enforcement. Rates of gun violence are lower in areas with stricter gun regulations. This shows the very clear solution to the problem of gun violence: regulating gun ownership.

According to Everytown, California ranks No. 1 in the country for gun laws. This is very good, but we can do better. According to this same source, we should assess students at risk of gun violence and allow officials to deny sales to dangerous buyers.

Hanna PhamSaratoga

Population decline is key to saving Earth

Re: “Nation’s growth drops sharply” (Page A1, Jan. 28).

It is wonderful news that U.S. population growth is slowing. Population decline is necessary for a future habitable planet.

There is no more frontier, no more open space — adding more people means draining rivers and bulldozing forests. It means habitat destruction, pollution, scarcity of resources, overcrowded roads and cities, climate change and killing wild populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish. It is the root cause of every major environmental problem.

Demographers seem to understand little about global ecology. They are more concerned with maintaining the Ponzi scheme where young workers pay for retirees, but seemingly unconcerned that over 8 billion people are destroying life on Earth.

Future generations may forgive humanity our long history of wars, inequality and neglect of certain segments of society, but it is doubtful they will forgive us for having destroyed much of life on Earth once it affects everyone on the planet.

Tina PeakPalo Alto