Taxing the not-so-popular products
Re: “Prop KK is worth making your way down the ballot,” Sept. 27 commentary
It is so easy for liberals to tax law-abiding citizens if they don’t like the product. Domestic abuse victims need help? Tax the gun buyers. Why? Because guns may eventually be involved. How many domestic violence incidents occur because one or both parties are drunk? I would imagine many. Why not tax alcohol? Because liberals know they couldn’t convince the public to tax themselves to help. Just tax those who use, lawfully, a not-so-popular product.
Jack Inderwish, Aurora
RTD fare to airport should at least be a bargain
I think that RTD’s airport fare price does not make sense. The kind of person who is willing to take the bus/train to the airport is also the kind of person who is willing to deal with the hassle of the shuttle lot at the airport.
The shuttle lot at the airport costs $8/day. For one person going on a three-day trip, the shuttle lot costs $24, and RTD round trip costs $20. The $4 savings does not seem like it makes up for the lack of convenience of RTD, given the pretty limited schedule. Probably most people traveling alone would not consider taking the bus until the trip is 4-5 days long.
This only gets worse for families. For two people, the break-even point is a five-day trip, when both options cost $40, and most people probably would not choose RTD until a trip of at least seven days. For four people, the break-even point is a 10-day trip.
This doesn’t account for other expenses that many people will have, like getting to/from the RTD stop, or parking at the RTD stop.
I assume that RTD’s airport service does not cost almost 4 times more to run than service to other parts of the city. If that assumption is correct, then RTD should consider lowering the cost of the airport fare so that it makes financial sense for more people to use it.
Steven E Strong, Lafayette
If nothing else, vote for younger generations
Re: “Hard to avoid regret in presidential election,” July 24 letter to the editor
I have a serious bone to pick with the reader who will not vote for either presidential candidate because, at age 82, it won’t affect him. I am 92 and, I can assure him it is vitally important to me. I have children, grandchildren, and a great-grandchild whose future is intensely important to me.
He frets about what sources to believe in order to make a decision. I strongly suggest he ignore “sources” and listen to the candidates. One speaks to retribution, dismantling 250 years of constitutional law, and tax breaks for the wealthy. I believe him! The other speaks to the middle class, women’s rights, voting rights, sensible gun control and above all, helping the middle class. I believe that, too. Neither can make this happen by themselves, but they are very open about their intentions.
Theo Davis, Phoenix
The personal decision of having children
With the recent focus by vice presidential candidate JD Vance on women not having children, let me express some doses of reality:
• Climate change is real, very real — 93 degrees in Denver in late September.
• Deadly hurricanes.
Related Articles
Opinion: Proposition KK is worth making your way down the ballot to support Colorado victims
Colorado Springs officer has shot two suspects this year, including fatal shooting at Walmart
Police identify last three suspects in viral video of armed men at Aurora apartment complex
Boulder King Soopers shooter found guilty of 55 counts
Father of Boulder King Soopers shooter thought he could be possessed by an evil spirit
• The planet’s hottest summer on record, for the second year in a row.
Add on to this the heartbreaking reality that small children are having to go through active shooter drills in school. Kids are dying because adults prioritize their Second Amendment rights over the right to live. We are in a state of chaos in our political world, where outright racism, sexism and violence are tolerated. The religious right wants to thrust their beliefs on all of us. Many women do not have the choice to make decisions regarding their own bodies. The cost of living, driven in large part by corporate greed, is affecting families’ abilities to provide for their children.
It then comes as no surprise that women (and men) are deciding to not have children or limiting the number of kids they have.
Susan Ramirez, Aurora
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.