Readers write: Editorial unfairly ranks criminal activity, police protests


Editorial unfairly ranks criminal activity, police protests

I am angered at the editorial, “Answers are still needed about 8-year old’s killing” (Editorial, Aug. 15). The AJC Editorial Board stated, “looting stores, or even torching police cars, is criminal behavior, yes, and worthy of prosecution and punishment. But it is a long way from gang members setting up a checkpoint in city streets and enforcing their way with long guns.”

Sadly, the editorial board is ranking levels of extreme criminal activity, making one less serious than the other. I somehow suspect that someone who owns a burned-out, looted store or destroyed automobile resents being considered a second-tier victim.

Secoriea Turner deserves justice, but I do not believe the city of Atlanta is up to the task, nor do I believe the AJC is capable of discerning the difference between legitimate peaceful protests and the violent actions of criminal thugs.


Don’t pay for infrastructure with user fees, consumption taxes

An opinion article in the Aug. 12 AJC suggests that demanding that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes would cause a wholesale loss of jobs and workers’ income on wages and salaries to go down. The writer further suggests that the best way to pay for President Biden’s infrastructure plan is with user fees and consumption taxes, which would be the best way to aid economic recovery and be an efficient source of revenue for public investments. This proposal is utter nonsense. Since the end of World War II, I do not remember any time that increasing corporate taxes has caused a loss of jobs or a reduction of working people’s wages and salaries. Putting a user fee and consumption tax on working people, many of whom struggle to make ends meet, would increase their hardship while the wealthy are getting even richer. This would be grossly unfair.