I am writing to express my concerns regarding two significant issues that are impacting our local community and to highlight the relevance of a recent policy proposal by presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Harris’s proposal aims to combat price gouging by corporations that impose exorbitant costs on us. This initiative is a timely response to the growing financial pressures faced by individuals and families across the country.
In light of this, I am particularly troubled by the Bowling Green City Schools’ proposal to increase the income tax rate by an alarming 150% this November. The current tax rate stands at 0.5%, but the proposed hike would push it to 1.25%. This dramatic increase comes on top of already rising costs of living, and it is a heavy burden for local residents to bear.
Kamala Harris’s policy is designed to address unfair pricing practices by corporations, which have been a significant concern. Since Harris took office, grocery costs have risen by approximately 30%, a substantial increase but still far less than the proposed local school income tax hike. While her policy targets large-scale corporate price gouging, the local tax proposal presents a different challenge, though one that equally strains our financial resources.
The crux of my concern is whether Harris’s policy, aimed at curbing corporate price gouging, could offer any indirect protection against local tax increases like the one proposed. The policy’s focus is on holding corporations accountable, but the spirit of the policy aligns with protecting consumers from undue financial strain. As such, it raises questions about whether there are broader implications or support mechanisms that could mitigate the impact of such steep local tax hikes. How can anyone justify asking a citizen to pay a 150% increase on income tax?
John Recker
Bowling Green
