LETTERS: Expiring tax cuts, light 'pollution'

Eliminate tax cuts for high earners

You printed a letter that stated that 98 percent of families live on salaries well below $250,000, many comfortably ["Business group should do the math," Letters, Oct. 16]. I totally agree.

There is clearly a debate over whether high earners should continue to benefit from the Bush tax cuts. When you consider that the higher tax rate for the rich would be applied only to income exceeding $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, it is doubtful that the additional tax on this 2 percent of our population would affect their spending and investment habits.

Sixty-seven percent of our economic activity is consumer spending, and those with less spend a greater percentage of their disposable income on goods and services. One could make the argument that the top 2 percent of earners should not continue to benefit from the Bush tax cuts, and that the lower 98 percent should be the beneficiaries of an additional cut.

If our business and political leaders started to make decisions on the basis of what is best for the country instead of self-interest, we might exit our current economic mess more quickly.

Robert Biancardi

Valley Stream

'Light pollution' an absurd cause

As I started reading your article about light pollution, and how a growing number of towns are "grappling" with what to do about the horror of outdoor lights, I kept waiting for a punch line ["Dimming the lights," News, Oct. 14]. To the contrary, the article went on to quote an environmentalist who informed me that "light pollution" is as serious as water and air pollution.

What better way to help our tanked economy recover than to burden small Long Island businesses and families with yet another layer of onerous rules and regulations? Why allow businesses to innovate and create new products (and jobs) when they can instead devote their resources to installing ridiculous shields on their outdoor lights under the threat of what are certain to be harsh penalties for noncompliance? Jobs will be even harder to come by, and families will have less to spend on necessities. But hey, you'll be able to see more stars at night, and the birds will be able to sleep soundly. And people wonder why good jobs and young families are fleeing the Island.

While it may be difficult for many to believe, the purpose of outdoor lights is to allow humans to see at night. That government bureaucrats and elected officials would seek to regulate the amount of "light trespass" emitted from outdoor lights is just the latest proof of their insatiable desire to control every last aspect of the lives of the citizenry. That they feel emboldened to enact such nonsense demonstrates what little regard they have for the intelligence of the electorate.

Edward J. Ferrara

Massapequa Park