To The Editor:
The following is a letter that I sent to Mr. Prousalis after reading his letter to the editor in the April 19 issue of National Underwriter and which I give you permission to reprint.
Let me introduce myself as the father of 6, with 8 grandchildren. Four of the 6 are married, the other 2 are gay. I never thought of them as being traitorousthat is the 2 who are gay. Or for that matter, the gay friends of my children, my grandchildren and some of our friends who are also gay.
All of these individuals participate in their own way in civic activities, hold responsible positions in their employment and are charitable to a fault. I know of no one in this entire groupgay or otherwisewho promote and/or believe in gay marriage. Quite the contrary. They believe in some formal civil union by which all could enjoy the rights given to us by the founding fathers and that our government should stay out of our bedrooms (and yours).
I am a prolific letter writer given to a vitriolic tone in a good many of those letters. I cant get to that level with you because you are so totally ignorant of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that you are intellectually incapable of understanding their meaning.
Alan J. Shactman
Dont Limit Possibilities
To The Editor:
Im an over 50 years old, heterosexual male and people continue to amaze me. I just finished reading “Life After Gay Life” (see The Editors Edge, April 19) and had to comment.
I, too, was somewhat homophobic until a few years ago when I started singing with a large mens group that contains several “gay” partners. Since that time, I have observed that in many cases, monogamous gay couples (of either sex) tend to be more loving and sensitive than many of their hetero counterparts. Take, for example, those who sent you the vile e-mails.
I dont personally like the gay lifestyle for myself, but I also dont like car racing, sheep shearing festivals or sand sledding. To shut people out because they do like these activities is simply to limit both their and ones own possibilities. Perhaps those who canceled their subscriptions should turn in their CLUs and, instead, take up conducting sand dune tours in Iraq.
Name Withheld By Request
How About A Pittance Tax?
To The Editor:
Would you prefer a “pittance” tax?
We are allowing this issue to become polarized as a political statement, disregarding the facts, with terms like “death tax” and “jealousy tax.” (See Letters, May 31.) The federal estate tax (and state versions) have never been levied against persons of modest means. We have never taxed those who leave only a pittance.
Taxing an estate is not thievery any more than all other methods of taxation. To say, as one reader commented, “All assets held in estates were created from dollars that were taxed when first earned” is a serious misstatement. The wealth of those whose stocks, real estate and business interests have inflated substantially have never been taxed, or if so, only on a very discounted basis.
Our country has a mammoth debt, brought about by congressional waste and our desire to extend the fruits of liberty across the world. Had we never gone to war in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Bosnia, or supported the cause of freedom with the defense of Taiwan, Korea, Europe and other areas, we would probably have no national debt.
If we are unwilling to have such a heavy current tax rate as to reduce the debt, then why not allow those who have benefited the most (whether through inheritance, luck, wise investment or diligent effort) to contribute what they can very well afford?
To the very wealthy, I say, “Pay the tax and quit griping!” To their heirs, businesses and advisors, I say, “If you wish to not be hit with a major tax, then take the well-known steps to reduce and avoid the tax: family and charitable gifts, wills, trusts, business agreements and insurance!”
I think every American would be pleased to be so wealthy as to be in the wealth tax bracket!
Ed Morrow, CLU, ChFC, CEP, CFP, RFC
Financial Planning Consultants, Inc.
Overweight And Testy
To The Editor:
I want to add another side to the story regarding the problems of being overweight and obesity that relates to the health insurance industry (See NU, May 10). Our firm spends a great deal of time, energy and money for our clients with group health insurance. We want to help everyone become better health consumers, live well, work well, prevention, etc. We have developed some great pieces and educational material, etc.
Heres the rub: When we are out prospecting and meeting with prospective clients and showing them the great material, information and health care brochures that we have developed, we had to leave out the ones on obesity because too many of the people we were meeting with were overweight and it was too “testy” a topic to discuss this issue!
Jeffrey W. Evans, CFP, CFCA
Evans Capital Management, Inc.
Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, June 4, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.