ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Wealthy deserve liberty, freedom

| Thursday, Dec. 28, 2017, 8:55 p.m.

Regarding Joseph Sabino Mistick's commentary “Take a page from Carnegie's ‘gospel'” : To begin, I am nowhere near wealthy. My sole motivation is the retention of liberty and freedom. I know Mistick's heart is in the right place. But as is often the case with liberal policy, he overlooks the most essential concepts of the collective thinking that determines our self-government.

He cites tax loopholes as a motivation for the wealthy to retain the wealth they have accumulated. Perhaps Andrew Carnegie's motivation was guilt.

The essential concept I am referring to is freedom. The wealth obtained by those special people may have resulted from hard work and intelligence or it may have been pure luck. Notwithstanding the reasons, their accumulated wealth has already been taxed in accordance with existing legislated tax policy, and what is left should be theirs to decide what is done.

We may not approve of how their beneficiaries deal with that wealth, but it should be theirs. Otherwise, we are arbitrarily taking away an inherent and vital right of private property. That, in my view, is not “misguided affection.” It is confiscatory policy that is associated with totalitarian forms of government.

Louis F. D'Emilio

Irwin

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me